BEAT Higher stakes but lose in lower ?

Hi
Is it possible to beat higher stakes even though you might lose in lower ?
I mean i lose in 0,10/0,25$ on pokerstars but i reckon that i won a bunch of money in 1/2$ awhile ago...
Tom dwan for instant possible would win easier in higher limits right ?
Feels like its just nits playing in lower limits that only wait for the nuts, or what do you guys think ?

Im sick of the swings in 0,10/0,25 so i think ill work myself up to a bankroll so i can play 1/2 or maybe 0,50/1 is enough ?

IF you guys think higher might be better for me, what stakes do you think is HIGH enough ?? i mean the lowest stakes that is enough to not be taken of the nits..

0,5/1 or 1/2 maybe ??

Thanks guys !

How do you expect to beat better players than the ones you're losing to??

I actually won in higher stakes before thats true but then my bankroll shitty management went out of control.
Win against better players can be easier for a guy who is capable to bluff much, AKA me.

no, its called luck or "run good". if you got good cards when u happened to be playing higher limits, you might have done well and might have found it easier.

If over a long time you cant beat lower limits..lol its just gonna be much harder at high limit. There are skills you have to build up besides bluffing..thats what the people at higher limits have done to get there.

Sounds like a terrible idea! Drop down a level if you are losing

Going up a level above what you lose at is a formula for disaster.The sharks wait for people who play out of their depth.

I'd drop down. You should be able to beat the fish if you play them but I'm sure at first if playing "correct" poker with no extra thought the better players could seem easier

Couple of questions..... What's your sample-size from when you were winning at higher limits? Also, how is it possible to be able to routinely beat higher limit players long-term, but not have the skill to beat lower-limit players who are far worse at the game? I question if you are ready for higher limit play if you can't easily make the necessary adjustments to beat low limit play.

Not sure if you are serious, but I'll try to give you a serious response.

You reckon you won a bunch o money at 1/2 but can't beat 0.1/0.25. I would put that down to you having a good run during your time at 1/2. No competent reg at 1/2 would have too much of a problem beating 0.1/0.25 over a decent sample (obv).

Tom Dwan is a good poker player, and as such would adjust his game accordingly. To suggest that instead of playing PA/Selbst et al, he would have a harder time playing against drunks/donks is just crazy. Of course he would do just fine at lower stakes, almost certainly experiencing lower variance because his edge would be that much greater.

If you are having problems playing against nits, then you are not adjusting. When a nit starts making the pot big, you need to take a long hard look at your cards and how they fit in with the board (and then fold if you haven't got the nuts - overpairs are not the nuts btw). Vs loose passives; value bet and fold if they raise. Easy game.

Play 10NL for a good few thousand hands. If you can't beat it, then you need to go to 5NL. If you can't beat that, try 2NL. DO NOT go UP to where there are BETTER players making fewer mistakes.


To summarize: more or less what Big_Rudy said

I like higher stakes because of less donks....on the other hand moving up in stakes is the quickest way to lose your br.

Move up OP. Move up and be sure to keep us updated. I for one want to watch you crush those easy to beat high stakes fish. I say take out a loan (maybe refinance the home) and play some 5/10.

This is a frequently seen line of thinking on these forums. And, it's completely wrong. I mean break down what you're saying..... Assuming that your goal is to win money.... "I have a hard time winning against unskilled players, so I'm going to move up to where they are more skilled 'cause, surely, I'll win there". Or, something along those lines..... Doesn't make sense.

When you have this mindset, you're the donk at the table

less fish at higher stakes so u can actually play poker. i agree with op. bluffs will work more often since people at lower stakes don't fold. it really all makes sense

You guys are bad

No.

This is the equivalent of a high school baseball pitcher saying he should move up to the majors because hitters at his level are used to crushing 70 mph fastballs whereas everyone in the majors throws 90+. Or an amateur chess player saying he'll crush a grandmaster because he won't expect his unpredictability/incompetence.

Although it doesn't affect the conclusion, these aren't completely appropriate comparisons because the luck element in both is far lower, as in nil. The high school pitcher and chess amateur have no way to run hot, while a poker player can, at least in the short term.

Yes, 1/2 live is equivalent to 25nl online. That must be what you're talking about.

Tom dwan can beat BOTH cuz he is really skilled and can adjust against the donks and fishes which is bluff less and stuffs, but me on the other side cant do that good, i´m the type who C-bets and bluffs once in awhile... it doesnt work on Nl10 believe me i´ve tried.

lololololol

never fails to make me laugh

NO TOM DWAN WOULD NOT WIN MONEY EASIER AT HIGHER LIMITS!

**** **** **** **** **** **** ****

You havent tried hard enough or arent good enough to beat 10nl if whatever your doing isnt working, start from the bottom and work your way up if you want some serious advice. Otherwise move up and donate some money.

lol i never said dwan would beat lower stakes easier ? i just said he would bluff easier and he´s good enough to adjust to the lower limits so yea he would beat the lower easier.

Yea i´ll play Nl10 with my 460$ bankroll... does that seems legit ?

yep, I'd say $460 is a perfectly healthy bankroll for 10nl

Oddly enough, I’m more comfortable playing the best players than I am the worst players. Game theory is much more applicable to rational, intelligent opponents than ones who are just playing randomly. So I love to set complex traps, to tell a story over the course of a day and then find the perfect spot to exploit the information I’ve given off all day. That’s what game theory is all about. I find that all my good results have come in pretty tough fields and there are two reasons for that. One, I play better against better opponents, and two, my particular style does well against good opponents.

Low stakes poker = River bingo Imo.

I really like your point here baub.... but sex vs. PLO?! yer one sik dude

lolololol

The games must still be good....

level? game theory implies the further from optimal their response set is the easier to exploit it is.

sub'd

Bluffing IS a big part of the game, but you cant bluff at NL10... can some confirm me that you have won in the low stakes ? and how did you guys play then, tight, aggresive or how ? Thanks

I have moved up through all the micro levels, winning pretty much consistantly. Yea, you can bluff at nl$10, you dont need to though.

When should you bluff then ? should you C-bet,3Bet and stuffs ? and when ??

Thanks !

When you stop looking for generalisations and start to play against specific opponents in specific spots you will become a much better player. There is no correct answers, your best bet is to stop looking for a one fit solution and start posting hands.

In your opening post you said that it seems like it's just nits waiting for the nuts. Since the nuts is hard to make, we can sometimes choose nice spots to bluff these dudes. But as tenbob says, you don't need to. Value betting is the best way to beat the game.

Why not post some hands you are having problems with?