low stakes vs high stakes

ok i know in the low stakes people will over play their hand how about in higher stakes
will this type of thing happen i had poket qs in the small blind and some1 in utg2 raised it every1 folded i reraised and he shoved and turned over poket 8s made it a $20 pot

i never played highstakes so i havent a clue, i actually cant really understand your post to be honest. its not very clear to me what ur asking

More likely to happen in higher stakes TBH. In higher stakes people know the button 3bet range is wide and 88 is ahead of that so will shove with a pp. PP's are strong in 6max with FE b/c they also have SD value if called.
Writing it down it seems counter intuative (only getting called by what beats you), however i've seen it numerous times when watching the high stakes tables on PS (probably some weird meta game i don't understand).

me 2 but thinking of trying higher stakes then 1 n2- 10 n 20 cents
i wasn't on the button
i was small blind

Common enough myth. People that cannot beat low stakes think for some insane reason that playing higher will be easier. It isnt.

^ this.

There are people that play bad at pretty much all stakes. The higher you go, though, the more good players there are for every bad player. That's bad for you. Plus don't forget that you want people to play bad.

My feeling is that people are more apt to gamble at higher stakes. More degens.
But competition is def way tougher.

When I think a bit more about it what I wrote above is a myth as well. Just that I dont reflect so much about a micro stakes degen.

not till i try it maybe could be better at higher stakes then 5 n 10 cents 1 day on tilt i played a 10 n 25 cent table and came up to $100 at 1 point and left with like $85
key word myth
and i dot think its going 2 be easier i think i mite do better at them

no, you won't. you had a winning session, which anyone can have at any stakes. Poker is a game of small edges that bear profit over the long run; if you're playing NL10, regs at NL50+ are going to have exponential experience/knowledge/edges on you in the long run.

how are u 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt i want be successful at higher stakes
so when i go play live 1 n 2 dollar blinds more often im going to be having more losing sessions then winning?
for some reason i feel i play my A game live i player tighter and can get 100x better reads then online so i think ill have more winning sessions live at higher stakes so y not online
experience yes they played those stakes longer then me
knowledge what kind of better knowledge would they have
also what kind of better edges

Without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth, I suspect it's because you're not the first person to say all these things. We've all heard everything you're saying before, time after time after time.

Plus if you came back after a reasonable sample and told us it worked, that would be a first.

At the end of the day though, it's your money and you can do what you like with it.

NL10 online = NL200 live. A winning NL50 reg online is going to be better than like 99% of NL200 live players; he/she may have some issues with tells and adjusting ranges for a vastly different player pool, but that reg is going to be just vastly superior in terms of experience (pretty normal for a 21-year-old online pro to have played more hands lifetime than a 60-year-old live pro) and in understanding ranges, manipulating ranges, understanding GTO, etc.

Anyway, the issue is not live vs. online; if you're rolled for $1-$2 live I'd say go for it, it'll probably be good for your game and your bankroll. If you start playing $1-$2 online you will get destroyed.

I've actually come up with a theory as to why stories such as yours are so common (probably more than is statistically likely). When someone takes a shot at higher stakes, regs often profile the newcomer as a composite reg without reads. Along with that come certain assumptions; i.e. that you will be properly balanced in certain spots when in fact, you are totally depolarized in most spots. This can end up in a higher-stakes reg paying you off or bluffing when you pretty much always have it whereas a lower-stakes player will just give up.

Anyway, good luck and keep us posted.

yes thats tru and i have read over and over not to do that
for 2-4 years i played 1 n 2 - 10 n 25 cent stakes never went past that
this thread was just me wanting 2 know the difference in the stakes
but there has been time 2 time thoughts of moving to higher stakes
thoughts like would they have called in higher stakes
and a few other thoughts about higher stakes as well
i dont think higher fixed limit will do but my nl skill maybe good enough for higher stakes
but if i do happen try out higher stakes it will be at 50 cent 1 dollar blinds 1st then go from there not saying im going to go up in the stakes

still
knowledge what kind of better knowledge would they have
also what kind of better edges


NL10 online = NL200 live
huh didnt know that by the way what is nl10 and nl200
will do

in general as you move up you will encounter players who are better at exploiting you because they understand your game pretty well after a few observed showdowns and a few hundred hands of stats. They will likewise be harder to exploit.

better players:
1. are more aggressive
2. know how/when to properly balance and merge their ranges.
3. know when to unbalance/depolarize to exploit a particular villain
4. are better hand readers
5. value-bet thinner
6. bet-fold instead of check-calling

among other things

ive tried and tried 2 do that to other players and every time for some reason it was a major fail i picked things up on other players 2 the point where i thought that person would always pay me off r ill take them for all there chips all that did was tilt me when showdown came they beat r i had to fold because no pair r better but i picked things up at showdowns about that player and this was at low limits


better players:
1. are more aggressive
im pretty aggressive
2. know how/when to properly balance and merge their ranges.
what do u mean by that
4. are better hand readers
im pretty good at that as well
5. value-bet thinner
what do u mean by that also
6. bet-fold instead of check-calling
what do u mean by this as well

I've been re-reading "Let There be Range" lately and one of the key parts of the book is posing simple questions and force you to really assess such things. It'd be helpful to post a sticky next to your monitor to keep track of some of these:

1. How often do you check-raise shove the river vs. someone who has double-/triple-barreled you?

How often have you done this without the nuts? How often do you have total air?

2. Similar to 1. What's your range for flatting 3-bets out of position vs. someone who clearly 3-bets a wide and polarized range? How often do you call a BTN raise from the BB and check-raise the flop? What is your C-R range there?

3. Against some villains (and probably most at micros) you don't need to balance because they aren't paying attention. You can value-bet them to death and just fold when they raise you. Against level 1 thinkers you can just play your hand vs. his range exploitably without regard for balance because he's not adjusting.

4. ok

5. How often do you flop TPTK or overpair in position, bet flop and either check-back turn or river because you're afraid he's tarping? How often do you value-bet the river with 2nd pair/3rd pair vs. an obviously weak range?

6. pretty self-explanatory. B/f >>>>> c/c in like 90% of river situations where you've been the aggressor.