Skill vs. Stakes

I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a feeling that Micro Stakes players may be as good or better then higher stake players. Low budget players will often be people who won a couple bucks on a 1000-5000 player freeroll. Anyone who can survive that well on a freeroll is someone who can play well. Whereas players at higher budget tables may simply be someone who deposited to get their money. No skill needed there.

Well this is wrong since there are so many massive people mtts with 2k+ and someone has to win it.. it's not like If there are 10k bad people 1st place will win less.
Also bad people ar higher stackes will just lose alot pretty fast, since the competition is alot better at higher stackes, they will make way less misstakes than at micros and those bad people will get crushed pretty fast.

in a freeroll there are many bingo players that go allin with rags and beat premium and high pocket pairs, it takes luck to get reasonably deep. Once you get there, the skill takes over. Thus the higher stakes players are better. The bingo players would never risk high stakes on rags and usually have no clue how to play.

I disagree because the majority of micro stake players just chase too much and play the garbage hands and win because they got lucky. but there are some micro players who know how to actually play and can play just as well as the higher stake players. This is just from my experience playing at micro stakes.

JonathanAReth said:

I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a feeling that Micro Stakes players may be as good or better then higher stake players. Low budget players will often be people who won a couple bucks on a 1000-5000 player freeroll. Anyone who can survive that well on a freeroll is someone who can play well. Whereas players at higher budget tables may simply be someone who deposited to get their money. No skill needed there.

Click to expand...

I think you are right, on average the level of skill on micro stakes tables is quite good. The higher stakes tables are comprised of players with a more pronounced gambling addiction, not necessarily with more skill. After all, the game rules are the same regardless if the small blind is one cent or one thousand dollars, the difference is the level of adrenaline rush that the gamblers experience, which is directly proportional with the stake size. And, also, let's not forget the good old greed, which is also a factor that influences people in choosing higher stakes tables. Without any gambling addiction or greed, everybody would probably play only freerolls.

In general the skill at higher stakes will be greater than at lower. But I definitely agree that a micro stakes game can be tougher than a mid or even high stakes game, that's when game selection is important and recognizing when a table just isn't worth playing and a much better spot can probably be found. It's really important to try and be objective when it comes to your spot in a game. If your goal is strictly to make money and a table seems tough to you just move to a different one.

That are some good microstakes players, but the skill set is different than at levels where the money starts to matter.

JonathanAReth said:

I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a feeling that Micro Stakes players may be as good or better then higher stake players. Low budget players will often be people who won a couple bucks on a 1000-5000 player freeroll. Anyone who can survive that well on a freeroll is someone who can play well. Whereas players at higher budget tables may simply be someone who deposited to get their money. No skill needed there.

Click to expand...

If you immediately jump over micro limits, a player won't understand the philosophy of other players well and will not be able to exploit. A regular micro stackes player can make many adjustments. And at a limits above, there will be a slightly more balanced game. In the same way, micro-rates check your endurance for bad beats.

All who played on the mini limits ... - all play better than those who started right away with big ..)))
layingba

I think on microlimits the game is different. I can't say that it's definitely better. Or if you call the game of calling everything with everything good then OK) But I've decided for myself that if I want to become a good poker player then I should go through this hell of microlimits. And learn how to win here. Btw, I've never play some highstakes so I can't judge.

the stack steers and helps to play more hands, and the short one makes your game risky and often only on the hand, so in most cases the big stack will be more profitable than the skill, but if the big stack is against the average but with experience, then the average will win (well, only if the big one is lucky all day, then there's nothing to be done about it).

JonathanAReth said:

I don’t have any proof of this, but I have a feeling that Micro Stakes players may be as good or better then higher stake players. Low budget players will often be people who won a couple bucks on a 1000-5000 player freeroll. Anyone who can survive that well on a freeroll is someone who can play well. Whereas players at higher budget tables may simply be someone who deposited to get their money. No skill needed there.

Click to expand...

Good players are at any limit) And as for freerolls and other tournaments with micro buy-ins, it is more often than not that getting into the prize zone in such wide fields depends on luck, although you paravia some skills, as well as experience is necessary and important...

There are many weak players in freeroll tournaments, but that does not mean that there are no good players. Eventually you will play hands with excellent players, be careful not to think they are a bad player anymore, or you will lose the tournament for lack of attention.

We can consider that a tournament that has so many bad players tend to be more advantageous for good players, although certain actions are complicated, you will agree that over time if you take the correct attitude sooner or later will overcome the majority of the bad players, and you could win some prize.

I agree that a player who has the skills to stand out playing freeroll tournaments can also stand out playing tournaments of various structures.

Well that feeling is quite human, but obviously flawed logic as it says that player in micros only gets worse when he advances levels.

Thus I now am better than me 3 years later in the future, so instead of learning I would be forgetting and only learning how to be worse. Granted it feels like that =)

I had to play both in microlights and high stakes. On high I did not play very much. On high-stakes tables I met players more reserved and skillful in the game. At the micro-limits, more young players are present. They do not control their emotions and make mistakes.