Inflation, mid-limits and theory

[mshalen]

I'm not sure where to post this question but this seemed like the best place.

There is a discussion in the WPT forum concerning the size of the buy in at the WSOP. The original buy in of $10,000 would be equivalent to $50,000 today. This started me thinking about the advise in a number of older poker books and the levels that they discuss.

When I first read Super System I, Middle Limit Holdem Poker and Holdem Poker for Advanced Players I thought that playing for limits of 10/20 to 40/80 could only be done by very wealthy gamblers yet these were called middle limits. Today I see see these games populated by college kids, grandparents and people who look like they couldn't afford the buy in.

So my question is: are these limits (10/20 through 40/80) still considered middle limits (though inflation would probably triple the dollars) and does the theory of how to play these levels still apply?

[BluffTHIS!]

The only use 10 to 50 dollar chips have is as coasters, antes and tips for hot waitresses.

[Quicksilvre]

In a B&M casino, I would consider anything south of $8-$16 as low limit, with $9-$18 and $10-$20 are mid-low limit. $15-$30 to $40-$80 is middle limit, with $50-$100 and $60-$120 being mid-high. Anything from $75-$150 is high limit.

Of course, that is for limit poker.

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]
Today I see see these games populated by college kids, grandparents and people who look like they couldn't afford the buy in.


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of these people are real idiots. I don't just mean donkeys....bad players....I mean really idiots.

There is a group of Commerce players that will play WAY above what they can afford. Several of these are dealers who make probably somewhere in the $50-75K range per year. They will sit at $9-18, 20-40, or 40-80 games. Keep in mind that all are losing players. They will drop over the course of a few weeks(or even one marathon session) 5-10% of their yearly gross. They will quit for 3-4 months until they get the itch, and then do it all over again.

I gotta say, it would devestate me to lose that much money. There is no way. If I were a break even player, or losing player, I would play something like $2-4 or $3-6.

[AaronBrown]

I've been impressed the constancy of the inflation-adjusted value of statkes I play. When I was in college in the mid-1970's a serious game had a $1,000 to $1,500 buy-in, either $10/$20 blinds or $5 antes. The big loser would be down $5,000 for the night. When I went to Gardena to find the best players in the world, we played $40/$80. Today my usual weekly game is a $5,000 buy-in with $25/$50 blinds or $20 antes, the big loser will be down $20,000. If I want to find top players (now more likely in Las Vegas), I move up to $100/$200. In inflation-adjusted terms these amounts are almost exactly constant, and when I look back over the last 30 years, I see the same approximate inflation adjusted value each year.

The mystery is $1,500 in college was almost a semester's worth of part-time work, while $5,000 today is much less than that to me. As a percentage of earned income, today's stakes are much smaller, but they feel about the same. I should have been terrified of losing in college, and only mildly disappointed at the same inflation-adjusted loss today. But that's not true.

Also we have some rich people in the game who earn $5,000 per hour tax-free on their muni bond portfolios, and not-so-rich people who can scrape $5,000 together only by hustling smaller games and not paying their rent. But the rich guys care and the not-so-rich guys aren't scared of losing.

I think you cannot compare Poker stakes to income, you have to compare it to amounts people spend. A guy with $100 million net worth doesn't spend 1,000 times as much on dinner or clothes or his car as a guy with $100,000 net worth. $5,000 focuses most people's minds, even if they only round their checkbook off to the nearest $100,000.