Bankroll rush. Do you crush low stakes? Excuse my silliness

[r3vbr]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I know the answer, low stakes is incredibly +EV, but I just don't undersatnd other than variance why things have been going the way they have, and at what point can I say that it's ridiculous?

[/ QUOTE ]

At small stakes (NL50) it's impossible [for me] to lose over 20,000 hands. At NL400 this is already extremely difficult to happen. 10,000 hands is a lot already, if you absolutely CRUSH the table, then varience wont affect you over 10k hands.

[Rotterdaum]

How significant is the difference in variance in 6 max and 10 max? Is the variance in 6 max significantly greater than in full ring only in short term (session)? In medium term? (10 sessions) Both? Not significantly?

[Mens Rea]

Not that you can do this, but if you take the math out of it (e.g. standard dev, etc.) which is admittedly the only way to get the actual correct answer, I would say that a winning $2k no limit player, playing seriously and adapting his game to the lower stakes, would absolutely destroy the $50 tables.

I just checked my pokertracker from way back when, and I won at 8 BB/hr over 50k hands, and I am much better now than then. I'd think I could come close to doubling that now, over a decent number of hands, and assuming those hands ran at the average of a much longer sample.

Is this the kind of answer you were looking for, OP?

[Rotterdaum]

Not sure if you're serious there, your tone seems sarcastic but I may be wrong. Anyhow, I'm just looking for some kind of consensus or disagreement about how higher stakes playesr view lower stakes. DO they present no challenge after playing higher stakes, or are they difficult in a different way? Isn't it true that if you play exactly the same way at 50 NL as you do at 2000 NL, you probably won't even win? And that the same should go for playing a 50 NL game at 2000 NL (more obviously) ?

So are they different environments?

What about the 2nd question? Have some fun, do some math, what do you think?

[Mens Rea]

No, no sarcasm intendend. The world class cash game players just prey on a better quality of player that is overmatched at that particular game.

I guess this is part of the reason why why the average winrate at the big game at the Bellagio is said to be so low.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if you're serious there, your tone seems sarcastic but I may be wrong. Anyhow, I'm just looking for some kind of consensus or disagreement about how higher stakes playesr view lower stakes. DO they present no challenge after playing higher stakes, or are they difficult in a different way? Isn't it true that if you play exactly the same way at 50 NL as you do at 2000 NL, you probably won't even win? And that the same should go for playing a 50 NL game at 2000 NL (more obviously) ?

So are they different environments?

What about the 2nd question? Have some fun, do some math, what do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]They are difficult in their own way. I found it somewhat hard to be honest playing low stakes NL (I never played it before I played high stakes nl cash). People there just play so absurdly it's hard to put people on hands. If I played the same way at 2000 NL at 50NL, I'd be a HUGE loser in the 50NL. I'm not sure, but I think BASIC strategy is to nut peddle (TPTK) and value bet at low stakes.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then what kind of a win rate is a 4-6bb/100 winning 2k NL player expected to have at 100 NL?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on how tailored the player's game is to exploit the weaknesses of players at NL 2k, but I would expect that anyone winning 5 PTBB/100 at NL 2k should be able to win more than 10 PTBB/100 at NL 100, over 12 PTBB/100 at NL 50, and over 15 PTBB/100 at NL 25. It's not easy to figure out every player just because he plays for low stakes, but plenty have easily identifiable weaknesses, or seem to hate money.

The variance you should observe depends on your playing style, but it is common to have a SD/100 of 30-70 PTBB. Within 10k hands at NL 100, it becomes a 2 SD event for me to break even or lose.

If you have been beating higher games but have been losing at NL 50, then you probably have some serious leaks in your game that you should be able to identify by looking at how the NL 50 players are outplaying you. Be thankful the higher stakes players have not been exploiting those leaks.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but I think BASIC strategy is to nut peddle (TPTK) and value bet at low stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
By itself, that might work, but it works a lot better if you identify the set miners and don't pay them off, but do call against people who bluff frequently.

[The Truth]

we gotta account for increased rake as well.

blake

[bkholdem]

I'm a low stakes player.
What the others said about nut peddling, value betting, and not paying off the set miners is true as a basic strategy at low stakes IMO.

I'm wondering of the OP if you are posting straighforward questions or is this a sophistocated bad beat post/thread.

Why don't you go grab a couple dozen hands where you got spanked and post them in the low stakes forum to help you figure out why you got spanked and see if a pattern emerges. Also hands where you feel that you made a mistake in the moment, where you might not be stacking off but firing on the turn way too much with nada into passive players and calling stations, for example.

What are you really looking for?
People to tell you it's normal and expected and to not worry about it?
After playing that many hands, being an experienced player, you should be able to evaluate if you are making mistakes or running into variance.
I usually don't have loosing days at the low limits and hardly ever have a loosing week at low stakes (with the exception of tilting) and I play 5 tables with major overlap on a laptop computer. I also only read the mid/high forum and am coming to realize that I would be winning more if I didn't outplay myself on some hands, interpreting weak betting for trickyness rather than actual weakness, for example.

Also, I've read the following somewhere and found it to be true in my experience, and consider it tilting when I do it:

Players who believe they are much better than their opponents (which you often see from a player dropping down a few notches in stakes) feel they are entitled to their opponents money and play impatiently/overagressively, in efforts to get the cash now. They don't want to/don't think they should have to actually adapt to the table conditions and play winning poker in the context of the actual game they are sitting in.