Your thoughts on 10/20 actually being less profitable than 5/10? - Page 3

sweetjazz · #21 05-28-2005, 02:06 AM

There's an article in this week's Sports Illustrated about online poker, and it profiles an Indiana University student who has lost something like $55K on gambling (most of which, I gathered, is poker), admits he doesn't play correct strategy, but asserts that he is not addicted because he could in theory walk away at any time (though apparently he hasn't yet). His credit is shot. He initially earned the money to play by buying and reselling tickets to concerts, sporting events, etc.

There are links to free online articles at SI.com that profile this individual. You can find them somewhere in NVG.

Jopke · #22 05-28-2005, 05:07 AM

Wow. YOu really need to take a step back and realize i am in no way attacking you. In the other post you gave the OP bad advice and i mearly corrected it. Here you asked if 10/20 can be more profitable than 5/10. For me and many others the answer is yes. If you are making less over lots of hands then its becusae you still have alot to learn about the game.

The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.

Don't take out your frustration from not winning as much as you like at 10/20 on me. Don't be a Jopke.

Nigel · #23 05-28-2005, 05:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. YOu really need to take a step back and realize i am in no way attacking you. In the other post you gave the OP bad advice and i mearly corrected it. Here you asked if 10/20 can be more profitable than 5/10. For me and many others the answer is yes. If you are making less over lots of hands then its becusae you still have alot to learn about the game.

The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.

Don't take out your frustration from not winning as much as you like at 10/20 on me. Don't be a Jopke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure how folding Q hi to a river raise on a 4BB pot (including the raise) is bad advice.

Sorry I'm a jopke. Whatever the heck that is.

Nigel

Silverback · #24 05-28-2005, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is no good players play 10/20 stakes and lower online. Theres the occasional one here or there on his way up to higher limits, but they don't stay there long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of good players stick at $10/$20 purely for the huge game selection at this limit.

TStoneMBD · #25 05-28-2005, 07:27 AM

i understand where you are coming from silverback, but i do think jopke is on target here. i think the point he was trying to get across is that the real good players of internet poker dont just give up on beating 10/20, most of them go on to play in games of higher and harder limits. i think hes trying to say that if you cant beat 10/20, its not because its less profitable for all players, but less profitable for those who are not good enough to move up yet.

jph0424 · #26 05-28-2005, 07:39 AM

I think that during the initial jump into 5/10 most of us will have significantly more success than during the initial jump into 10/20. It will just take most 2+2ers a little while longer to master the type of play because it is more aggressive probably than any game we have ever played in. However once you reach a comfort zone I am pretty certain that any jump in limits will result in a jump in profit if you are a good player and ready to make the leap.

For the record, I know small sample size but: 30k at 5/10 2.9bb/100, 10k at 10/20 1.7bb/100.

Nigel · #27 05-29-2005, 07:18 PM

I never meant for this thread to turn to 'is 10/20 beatable' or 'who's beating 10/20'.

Cleary the game is beatable, and for go
od money. What I was going after is, how profitable is the game relative to other levels of SHed play, or even the same stakes at other sites other than Party.

Personally, I've found Party's 15/30 full tables that have gone short to be far easier than the typical 10/20 table filled with 3-4 regulars. I've also done well enough at 5/10 running 6 tables (more than I could safely run at 10/20) to make it so that 5/10 is on the whole more profitable for me. That, with much less stress and basically not much in the way of downswings.

However, I couldn't agree more with what Arkady said about multi-tabling stunting your poker growth and leading to burnout, and I think Togni's comments on table difference's are so true. Some 10/20's play very easy. But I find the majority don't, unless I just have bad luck when it comes to finding juicy tables. And I do know that it is important to keep moving up through the limits, so I play 15/30 as my full time game and am taking shots at 30/60 as well.

Maybe the answer is above 10/20 rather than lower. I'm just feeling like 10/20 isn't an optimal difficulty/stress to $$/hr tradeoff. For those of you that play higher than 10/20 or 15/30 on a regular basis, are the short games that much more difficult than a tough 10/20 table?

motorholdem · #28 05-30-2005, 02:43 PM

Hi Folks

Personally, I find that with proper table selection, the 10/20 games suit me better than 5/10, and I have had more success. (On party/empire, and even at UB - which never used to be the case)

I tend to be semi-loose agrressive passive (SLAP)
28VP 18PFR, and generally can find a couple of people playing 50% or 60% + VP at a 10/20 6 handed table. I play enough hands to get action, but no so many as to be too loose.

Mind you I have not played 5/10 in a while, so maybe I am just running good.

PS. I don't seem to find that TAGS (in general)do that well at 10/20. If they are multi-tabling they don't seem to defend the blinds well and when they play a big Ace they can be pushed off a pot easy on a missed flop...

These are GENERAL comments, but I find that the multi-tablers, when pressed for time on a decision, often default to fold unless you have really fishy stats. Cause we know they are all tracking......

wheelz · #29 05-30-2005, 02:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
AWE: I'm in awe over how bad some of the players are still at 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

These were my first thoughts too.

TStoneMBD · #30 05-30-2005, 02:56 PM

i know that you were trying to compare which games to be more profitable, and werent at all trying to say that 10/20 is not beatable.

ive also decided that im not going to stay at 5/10 for much longer. i plan on moving up to 10/20 shortly. ive played a few tables of 10/20 and the games are much fishier than some people would say, which seems to be the case for every level.