Higher stakes poker easier?

Are higher stakes poker tourneys and ring games easier for quality players? I can't afford them, so I don't know from personal experience. I have a theory that it might be easier to make money in them if you know what you're doing. Any truth to this?

if you know what you're doing you should beat any stakes. I think a lot of people think they're better than they are and decide to move up where their sophisticated play will get more respect - trust me, you'll just get a lighter BR.

Bad players will play bad hands, make bad calls, etc. The problem here is that you may be good enough to beat any 1 bad player, but if everyone is just throwing their chips around without any idea of what they are doing (.01/.02 6 player ring game for example), the random nature of the cards will have some of them getting lucky pretty often. My assumption is, that better players are less likely to call in late position with 6 8 o (for example), so they would not be in a position to crush you when the flop comes down 5 7 9. Is there any truth to this?

What's wrong with 'calling with 86o in late position'?
If stacks are deep & they know you're NIT who's not going to be able to fold an overpr. or TPTK hands... then they're going to have huge implied odds with speculative hands.

Ive won a few sattelites and played in some big buy-in MTT's where I was out-classed.

It's funny cause I leave a small buy in MTT and feeling bad becuase I think I had a badbeat. I leave the big Buy in MTT and leave feeling bad because I got outplayed.

Both have there own pitfalls that's why a good MTT player is still just ITM around 15% - 20% of the time. In the long run you'll still be more profitable against players that are worse than you.

As for cash games I imagine it is the same way.

LOL, if you are a better player, 68o is a hand you are calling with in late position.

Why the hell are you guys calling with 68??? 3bet that shit!

One just needs to make adjustments to the play on the table.
My own personal experience is that I will have better results at a marginally higher buyin than the very lowest.

No.

The only caveat is that rake gets lower proportionally. But very obviously games get tougher when you move up.

Bad assumption I think. BUT HUGE BUT! I to do not have any experience with big buy-in ring games.

I think most poker schooling, either from books, or articles or forums will concentrate the efforts on understanding the game and at least make an attempt to tighten up true noobs. It is the guy who expects to get lucky that is the target for the 'education'.

That said, watching Poker tourneys, and HSP will show that it seldom makes much of a matter what starting cards one holds, and more matters on how they are played.

So it sort of boils down to being rolled for the bigger games, and being able to withstand the crushing defeats at the fins of the fish......

I too have that nagging suspicion my game is more suited to much bigger buy-ins than I am willing to afford, but alas, barring a miracle, I may never find out...

High stakes, low stakes.. it's all the same game. Just because some people play in higher stakes, doesn't always mean that they are better players.. that just means they have more money.

What a concept!!

True for the fishes. But the regs are way better higher up.

I think I understand what you are trying to say.. you think it will be easier to put better players on a hand as they know how to play the game right? Therefore their call/raising range will be reduced? This could also work the other way though.. the same better players will take this into account and throw in occasional unusual plays. I don't believe it is easier to win at higher stakes.

Actually the better players tend to be at the upper range of profitable looseness if that makes sense. They understand the power of position and use it better. They're better at hand reading and know what boards you're opening range can continue on and they use that knowledge to win pots with basically position and ATC. So hand reading becomes more difficult not easier and you're doing it against people who hand read better.

Well, I never said what the bet was. I intentionally left that part vague. However, if you call in late position with 8 6 o generally - might be easier to just flush ur chips down the toilet. I'm not saying never do it - just saying that it is a crappy hand. You know this - you have been playing for a long time. I know you just like giving me a hard time. Would you rather be dealt A K suited or 8 6 o ?

Thank you Lenny! Someone always says what I want to say better than I - neuro disease, blah, blah, blah. I appreciate the input by all - trying to get helpful info really. I guess what I'm saying is that better players will not throw their chips away normally. They assess calculated risks better and are more likely to fold in a losing situation. Therefore, it seems that your bad beats would be somewhat less? I dunno ... asking more than assuming really.

What you perceive as bad beats might be somewhat less but your losses will be a lot more.

What hand would you rather your opponent called your EP open with preflop J3o or 22??? Let's give you pocket Aces. The flop is JT2 double suited. The "donkey" with J3 might give you his stack because he "puts you on AK" but the "better player" is ready to take it with his set.

I think I meant that it may be easier to win at a higher table for a good player than it is for a good player to win at a donk fest table. Bad beats happen when you outplay your opponents by a lot; wouldn't you be outplaying your opponents by a lot, more at a lower table than a higher table if you're a good player?

Get in enough situations where you're ahead and you'll win in the long run.

You'll have more reaally bad suckouts the lower the level 'cause they'll get it in with worse hands, and those might be memorable, but in the long run a good player will win more big blinds per hand at lower levels than at higher levels, usually in spite of the rake difference. You still have to read your opponents, put them on a range (just don't assume a narrow range for a 60/10 player), adjust for fold equity (you may have none; that's fine, just be aware of it), try to make them make mistakes, and have patience.

Yes, as hillbilly has said, you are right in thinking you will suffer less bad beats at a higher level.. this is because better players will fold when they are behind more often than poorer players will. I guess this also means that a well timed bluff is more effective when playing stronger players..

I have not found this to be true, which is why I'm baffled.

I think there are probably a lot of poor players with a lot of money they can afford to waste, so there is a lot of bad play even in very high stakes.
What do you do when you have too much money to spend? Look at the roulette wheels in casinos and the people who park their yachts in Monte Carlo.

However the professional players don't waste their time at low stakes and they are good at applying the pressure to any amateurs that venture into their fishing grounds.

imo i think that in high stakes the good players will win over the long run, the fish will get lucky sometimes but the pro's make a living off fish taking chances in the big game and will eventually get crushed

I can only speak for the games I play, which is mostly re-buy sat tourneys.
The low buyins are really easy. The 'regulars' are really weak, and the fish is plenty.
As you move up there are still some fish, but the regulars are really tough.
And most of the time the fish will be gone within the first hr, and then you are sitting there with solemly full grown pro's.

So definetly no.

I still am not convinced that I know the answer here. I am also not convinced that great players find lower end tables easier than higher end tables. Good poker players can't utilize their skills at tables where people throw their chips around like wedding rice. It's a luck fest; one's skill is less helpful, not more. That's my point anyway - so far no one has given me a convincing argument that this is not the case. I want to be wrong on this since I can't afford big stake tables, but ...

You're definitely wrong on this. Money in poker comes from making better decisions than your opponents do. The worse your opponents play (and the worse decisions they make), the easier it is to make money.

Whether or not you have room to make great plays is totally irrelevant. The only thing that you might be able to say is that there may be a larger difference between a great player and a good one at high stakes than at low stakes. At smaller stakes games, both players may win a similar amount, while at high stakes the great player will win and the good player may break even or even lose.

It is true that every time I watch a high stakes player make a micro stakes video, they usually end up leveling themselves and stacking off by playing right into calling stations while talking into their mic about how soft the tables are and how big their skill edge is as they repeatedly reload at the table.

In fact, I just got done watching a BalugaWhale video this morning where he did just that...talking about how his skill edge was going to be so huge, and then spewing chips for the entire duration of the video.

I'm still looking for a video or something where a pro player crushes micro stakes. Personally, I think people are living in the past and even micro stakes players have evolved. Because if micros were really as soft and terrible and fishy as people claim, pros should be able to sit down and run with absolutely crushing BB/100 values, even with variance and I've yet to see someone demonstrate this.

This is a worthy debate I think. Personally, I'm trying to decide if I would have better luck at higher stake tables. The normal logic is "no". I'm not anxious to lose money either, but I haven't seen proof that making good decisions pays off at the micro tables. Making good decisions means that you don't suck out much; I might go a week without sucking out even once. But I don't think I've even had a single day where I didn't get at least 1 bad beat.

Sounds like you may be playing a bit too weak-tight. Do you use tracking software? What's your WTSD? Sample size?

That's a whole issue. I don't have the software - I'm working on it. But if I were to estimate, and based on tourney stats (and rightly or wrongly I play cash games roughly the same as I do tourneys) it is very low. My W$WSF (is that the correct abbrev.?) is probably 75 - 85%.

While a coach's results over a few hundred (or thousand) hands are completely irrelevant, I agree with a lot of your points.

The lower stakes have definitely gotten tougher over the years. One of my pet peeves is when a coach goes to make a video at stakes that he rarely plays, then proceeds to make sweeping generalizations about the play at these stakes that he doesn't play anymore. I don't believe in making videos at stakes that I don't play, to the point where I went out to get a small-stakes coach to make those videos.

It's not that I don't think my advice will be unhelpful to a small-stakes player, but different types of videos will be more helpful than live table play outside my realm of recent experience. I'd rather watch a successful small-stakes player make small-stakes videos than watch a mid-high stakes pro outside his comfort zone.

W$WSF of 75+ is crazy high. Anything above 50 is really high.

W$WSF = Won when saw flop, i.e. how often you win the pot when you take a flop.

W$SD = Won at showdown, i.e. how often you win the pot when you get to the showdown.

WTSD = Went to showdown, i.e. how often you get to the showdown after taking a flop.

Sorry. Sorry. Got confused. My W$WSF is very low - I'm sure. I would be surprised if it was even 25%. It's my W$SD which is 75 - 85%. WTSD is very, very low also I/m quite sure - 10% maybe.

I didnt read all the posts here.

However, playing higher stakes & better players is harder, a lot harder.

You can forget the cards for a start - they don`t make a difference most of the time - NLHE it is rare that the flop improves anyones hand that much.

The rest of this thread seems to be a `bad beat` thread.

When I first started playing poker I was like this "My AA never holds up" "I pushed all in will AK and the muppet called with K10 and hit 10 on the river. He must have known he was dominated" etc, etc, etc.

As someone said, it is a statistic impossibility to get your chips in good everytime and lose. However, what makes losing players is the amount of times they don`t get there chips in good because they can`t read the board or won`t fold a hand that is good but not good enough.

Interesting.

I've never played a very high stakes tourney, but when I look at the player pool (which I do sometimes for the hell of it), I can't help noticing that there are not a whole lot of players. Might be interesting to observe the play all the way through one of the biggies and see if there are a lot of groaner suckouts (i.e., hands won with garbage). I bet not. I also bet there are fewer LAGs, but that those few don't necessarily do badly.

I regularly play the Double Deuce on Sundays at Full Tilt, which has a $20 buy-in and thus is over my usual buyin limit. I always sat in, as do many others, and the pool is pretty big, although it does not always beat the guarantee level. In that tourney, there are still foolios who (I assume) satted in and are playing badly. But, even though the first two hours have high casualties, there are relatively few horrific suckouts with garbage hands in EP -- unlike freerolls and daily dollar level tourneys. Note, however, that I do not consider a suited connector (if others let it get to the flop cheaply) a crap hand. It's a very valid hand to play cheaply (or even aggressively, if folded to) from late position.

The couple of times I have played tourneys with $200+ buyins, the play was even more careful (albeit aggressive), more thoughtful. Many many fewer idiotic plays. And therefore, to some extent, most players did have a definable range which somewhat favors a skillful player. Not that I am skillful, but I did find it less worrisome to try to guess what the other guy might have and decide accordingly. I could pretty much rule out serious stupid, but couldn't rule out the big bluff. It was less of a crap shoot, more poker -- and quite full of danger. For the most part, I felt I was constantly in danger of being outplayed. I worried that nearly everyone else was better than I am. My perceptions may have been affected by my discomfort.

That's anecdotal rather than statistical, so my observations may not be completely valid.