Why are higher limit tables more difficult?

Hey guy,its me again with one of my theoretical threads.
i wanted to ask a question that i dont seem to fully understand yet. Why are the higher limit tables more difficult? is it because the players are more hyper aggressive? is it because there is more money at risk? cause i simply dont want, and CANNOT and WILL not believe that they are better players just because they play at higher stakes. I mean alot of them are rich russian dudes or whatever that are sitting at their house with a scotch and killing time. As you may find donks in 2NL,thats the same way that you may find donks in 100NL or 1000NL. A good and smart poker player exists at 100NL and 2NL and the variance of skill varies from person to person REGARDLESS of what levels they are playing in. So how is it that the higher tables are tougher? is it that all the good players are playing at the higher limits and all the donks are in 2NL?cause i know some really smart cats and GREAT players that just happen to be grinding the super micros. how does the story go? i wanna hear some answers.
cause at the end of the day,the same cards win and the same strategy is applied.to me its the same game with different numbers against all sorts of people exactly like the 10NL. am i wrong?

there is some difference in the level of play,but remember,those guys up in the higher limits play with pretty much the same people day in and day out. as soon as a newer player pops in the tables,they spot you immediately.and start testing you. how many low stakes players use to calling pennies are gonna call a huge raise with a low or middle pocket pair? not many,as they get spooked by large bets that they are not used to having thrown at them.theyll usually fold the hand. playing short money is worse than playing like a donkey.

It's true; there are fish at all limits.

However; the higher you go..the less there are. This is just because most "fish" like most people in the world aren't rich. Your average day person can only afford to play small limits, not the big limits.

You will get the odd bussiness man of course at the highest limits, but this ratio is FAR lower than your average donk at the micro limits.

Simply put, there are a ton more fish playing low stakes as opposed to the high stakes.


Also; you will find a strategy that would work at 2nl or 10nl WONT work at 10000nl, over the long that's just naive if you believe that even with the same cards as you sya because the players are so good; it just would not work over a long period of time because they have every skillset to realize what your trying to do.

It would be like sticking a pub team up against manchester united in football. Sure; short term every now and again, pub team might perform well in spots; but overall they are going to take a huge beating.

a simple answer may be that the majority of players at higher limits have more experience than those at lower

I think ram is correct.
IMHO I do believe there is donks or weak players at all levels.
But yes at the high limits there are fewer and fewer players,and alot of them are the same ol faces so to speak.
If you are a solid player you are a solid player regardless,when the cards fall they fall.
I am happy playing the 1/2 and 2/5 nlhe tables and smaller mtt tournaments, I can play higher but am happy at the moment playing the limits I am playing,and making enough money at those limits to be happy with.
It isnt that I am scared of higher limits,because I am sure of my game,it is that I am just happy at the limits I am at.
Now im positivethere are wealthy people out there,that need higher action. the 1/2 or 2/5 tables just arent enough for them and need more,and might not be the strongest players at all.
Now I do believe you might get pushed around at the higher limits alot more,but in tern you yourself can do some pushing right back.
And I would say weak/mid pair call downs would be like less to happen in some higher limit games.

ok .thanks for answering guys and i see what you mean.of course there are alot less fish in higher limits cause there are fewer rich people than average/poor people . but what im saying is this. the other day i was railing a high stakes cash game on stars . i was just having coffee and was watching how damn crazy the raises were.like at 10/20NL min raise was 60 and there was a pot of 100 bucks without any action whatsoever. was really sick. at one point this one guy raises and this other guy reraises and then the first guy shoves something like 2300 dollars and the other guy calls. well,the guy that shoved had pocket 10's!!!!!!!!!!! and the caller had QA suited and i was thinking: "WHAT THE HELL AM I WITNESSING RIGHT NOW"! this is not exactly the kind of hand i would shove my 2.3K(pocket 10's) and the call of QA suited was mind blowing. but then i thought these guys just see the 2k the way i see 5 dollars so thats how i made the whole thing make any sense in my mind. but in reality what im trying to say in this thread is that i dont think that they are necessarily better than a low stakes player.its just that they do the same thing on a higher level(more money) which might make them look better but in reality are just as good as any winning lower limit player.so my conclusion is that the reason the higher limits are described as tougher is Only because more money is risked. i think this conclusion sounds pretty solid.

I agree vinyl.
And like I mentioned earlier money is of no issue.
2K is like 5 bucks to some people,when they buy there chips,them like alot of other player dont see them as money at all.
they are just clay chips .
As far as that hand goes sounds interesting,but alot more could debate about the call or shove.
I suupose it depends how long you have sat at the table with said player and what kind of image you think they might have ..

It is partly more money I mean that is a big deal.......

Also people who have a lot of money are not stupid so........

I think its really more about "gambling" at nose bleed stakes.

online poker is a conveyor belt of money, lots of people deposit and play nl$2 for fun, and i can guarentee that most of them lose money, however some of them are better than others and start winning, these players move up. So as you go along the nl2 player is eventually a nl$100 player. Usually the peter principe applies, and unless a player is constantly improving they will reach a level that they cannot beat, so based on that system most higher level regs will have beaten every level below and is a good player.

Throw into the mix at all levels then the players that deposit $200 to play $1/2 because they do that in the casino, fish that bink a $5MTT for $2K, someone that wins a sunday major after freerolling in and thats where the fish come from, they are less abundant the higher you go

tenbob said:

Online poker is a conveyor belt of money, lots of people deposit and play nl$2 for fun, and i can guarentee that most of them lose money, however some of them are better than others and start winning, these players move up. So as you go along the nl2 player is eventually a nl$100 player. Usually the peter principe applies, and unless a player is constantly improving they will reach a level that they cannot beat, so based on that system most higher level regs will have beaten every level below and is a good player.

Throw into the mix at all levels then the players that deposit $200 to play $1/2 because they do that in the casino, fish that bink a $5MTT for $2K, someone that wins a sunday major after freerolling in and thats where the fish come from, they are less abundant the higher you go

Click to expand...

i never said otherwise.of course they are less in the higher limits because of the reasons you so nicely stated but what im trying to say is that the good micro level player(GOOD) might be exactly as good as the GOOD higher level player but with the only difference being that they use the same skill; or talent if you will,at different monetary levels but in reality they might be equally as good. so i guess its the abundance of fish that dictates whether a limit is tough or soft.right?

I changed my mind I think people with a lot of money may not be so bright but they are certainly lucky at the very least.

vinylspiros said:

i never said otherwise.of course they are less in the higher limits because of the reasons you so nicely stated but what im trying to say is that the good micro level player(GOOD) might be exactly as good as the GOOD higher level player but with the only difference being that they use the same skill; or talent if you will,at different monetary levels but in reality they might be equally as good. so i guess its the abundance of fish that dictates whether a limit is tough or soft.right?

Click to expand...

Not really, the difference is that the majority of the good higher level players have already beaten every single level of the micro's, so their level of understanding of the game is higher than a player that just jumps levels. If you told me tomorrow morning that you won $10million on the lottery, and wanted to beat poker, I would still advise you to proove that you could beat nl$10 before attempting anything higher.

vinylspiros said:

cause i know some really smart cats and GREAT players that just happen to be grinding the super micros

Click to expand...

I guarantee you not one single player that currently grinds super micros would have any chance playing HU against even the most mediocre regulars that win money at 200nl+.

vinylspiros said:

ok .thanks for answering guys and i see what you mean.of course there are alot less fish in higher limits cause there are fewer rich people than average/poor people . but what im saying is this. the other day i was railing a high stakes cash game on stars . i was just having coffee and was watching how damn crazy the raises were.like at 10/20NL min raise was 60 and there was a pot of 100 bucks without any action whatsoever. was really sick. at one point this one guy raises and this other guy reraises and then the first guy shoves something like 2300 dollars and the other guy calls. well,the guy that shoved had pocket 10's!!!!!!!!!!! and the caller had QA suited and i was thinking: "WHAT THE HELL AM I WITNESSING RIGHT NOW"! this is not exactly the kind of hand i would shove my 2.3K(pocket 10's) and the call of QA suited was mind blowing. but then i thought these guys just see the 2k the way i see 5 dollars so thats how i made the whole thing make any sense in my mind. but in reality what im trying to say in this thread is that i dont think that they are necessarily better than a low stakes player.its just that they do the same thing on a higher level(more money) which might make them look better but in reality are just as good as any winning lower limit player.so my conclusion is that the reason the higher limits are described as tougher is Only because more money is risked. i think this conclusion sounds pretty solid.

Click to expand...

The reason is that at the super micros people generally have giant leaks, and usually don't have a very good understanding of when to be aggressive. They will either 3-bet a lot and give up after that or never 3-bet anything but the nuts or something like that. But the point is that against bad players there's no need to worry about getting it in with TT or AQ (or else it's the other way and no one wonders why you get it in because they're all-in every hand). But against good aggressive players it becomes necessary to start defending wider. At the micros you generally exploit the fact that your opponents don't have good aggression frequencies by running them over and folding when they raise/3b/do something aggressive. However when you move up they're not bad enough for you to do that, so you have to either start flatting wider or else 4betting wider and if you're going to 4b wider you have to start calling 5b shoves wider as well. Meanwhile if your opponent is 4-betting wider you need to start calling 4-bets/5b shoving yourself more.

Anyway hopefully that makes sense but the point is the people you think are good grinding the super micros suck compared to people playing higher and there is a huge difference in skill between the regulars at the super micros and the regulars at hsnl.

tenbob said:

Not really, the difference is that the majority of the good higher level players have already beaten every single level of the micro's, so their level of understanding of the game is higher than a player that just jumps levels. If you told me tomorrow morning that you won $10million on the lottery, and wanted to beat poker, I would still advise you to proove that you could beat nl$10 before attempting anything higher.

Click to expand...

your right man .sound advice i must admit.im just trying to find what the difference is. i still kinda feel that its similar but i may be fooling myself who knows.

hackmeplz said:

I guarantee you not one single player that currently grinds super micros would have any chance playing HU against even the most mediocre regulars that win money at 200nl+.



The reason is that at the super micros people generally have giant leaks, and usually don't have a very good understanding of when to be aggressive. They will either 3-bet a lot and give up after that or never 3-bet anything but the nuts or something like that. But the point is that against bad players there's no need to worry about getting it in with TT or AQ (or else it's the other way and no one wonders why you get it in because they're all-in every hand). But against good aggressive players it becomes necessary to start defending wider. At the micros you generally exploit the fact that your opponents don't have good aggression frequencies by running them over and folding when they raise/3b/do something aggressive. However when you move up they're not bad enough for you to do that, so you have to either start flatting wider or else 4betting wider and if you're going to 4b wider you have to start calling 5b shoves wider as well. Meanwhile if your opponent is 4-betting wider you need to start calling 4-bets/5b shoving yourself more.

Anyway hopefully that makes sense but the point is the people you think are good grinding the super micros suck compared to people playing higher and there is a huge difference in skill between the regulars at the super micros and the regulars at hsnl.

Click to expand...

yea,you totally make alot of sense. i just thought about the whole thing again and come to think of it,its impossible for micro grinder to ever obtain enough experience that comes with hgiher limits such as 4 betting 5 betting shoving etc. so i assume that there may actually be a difference from low limit good player to high limit good player. i think the difference may be actually understanding why your doing what your doing and be able to think outside the box .

small sharsk may be aggressive but so overly aggressive that they dont realise that by overbetting you lose value when you have the nuts cause there is a strong possibilty they might fold. milking opponents never occur to them. but the high table roller will think of the best possible way to get stacks in the middle.

Assume something like this.

A good nl$2 player realised that to 3 bet from the blinds its for value.

A good nl$10 player realises that to 3 bet from the blinds is for value and to resteal.

A good nl$400 player realises that to 5 bet-bluff from the blinds vs a button steal's 3bet he knows that the button knows his 3 bet is a re-steal, so he 4 bets small. He has a basis in history though, and knows what his ranges are, and because he has gained previous experience he knows what spots and what players to do it against.

tenbob said:

Assume something like this.

A good nl$2 player realised that to 3 bet from the blinds its for value.

A good nl$10 player realises that to 3 bet from the blinds is for value and to resteal.

A good nl$400 player realises that to 5 bet-bluff from the blinds vs a button steal's 3bet he knows that the button knows his 3 bet is a re-steal, so he 4 bets small. He has a basis in history though, and knows what his ranges are, and because he has gained previous experience he knows what spots and what players to do it against.

Click to expand...

BrilliaNT POST. yea i see what your saying.its another level.whole other level. great explanation.i agree 100%.

Stu jumped the levels. Pretty sure he always played for like a hug chunk of his bank roll.

tenbob said:

Assume something like this.

A good nl$2 player realised that to 3 bet from the blinds its for value.

A good nl$10 player realises that to 3 bet from the blinds is for value and to resteal.

A good nl$400 player realises that to 5 bet-bluff from the blinds vs a button steal's 3bet he knows that the button knows his 3 bet is a re-steal, so he 4 bets small. He has a basis in history though, and knows what his ranges are, and because he has gained previous experience he knows what spots and what players to do it against.

Click to expand...

This is good, but more specifically:

A good 2nl player knows how to play his cards well

A good 10nl player realizes that you're playing other people and need to adjust your play based on opponent

A good 400nl player realizes that there are ranges and that other good players also know there are ranges. They are better at seeing a small amount of information and extrapolating that to better understand the opponent's overall strategy, and understands how to exploit overall strategies with various parts of their range without opening themselves up to getting exploited too much.

A good 5knl player sees ranges and realizes that against other world-class players anything more than a slight adjustment from gto will be seen and exploited very quickly, so generally they attempt to play in such a way that an extremely good opponent can not exploit anything they're doing. They will make minor adjustments and re-adjustments but generally will be attempting to play very close to gto in pots against non-fish.

I'm not even close to a good 5knl player so that might be a bit off but it's my understanding. As for the other stuff though the biggest thing I notice that lower-stakes players do badly is they just don't understand the what's actually going on in the game and they don't understand the correct adjustments to make even if they did know their opponent's exact game plan.

Whereas for example let's do this quick exercise. You're playing someone HU who is 3-betting you a lot (say 25%) and being extremely aggressive. What would you be looking for now to determine how to adjust? A lot of lower-stakes players would either just start tightening up or trying to play back/call down lighter without really thinking about why. But the better players are the ones who think about how this affects his other ranges. Is he 3-betting thinner for value? Some people 3b 25% and their range is literally JJ+/AK/bluffs. How is he going to react with his bluffs to a 4b? Is he going to barrel them a lot postflop? What do the answers to those questions change about our game plan? What does this do to his flatting range? If he's really 3-betting a ton of value hands and broadways what does that tell you about his flatting range? How are you going to exploit that? And as you adjust to him think about what he sees. Every hand you show down think about what that does to what he perceives to be your game plan. If he sees you call a 3b with J4s what's his most likely adjustment? How do we stay one step ahead of that?

I'm not just talking out of my ass here these are really things that I think about when I'm playing on a daily basis, and not that I'm amazing or anything but I do think I understand what it takes to beat 400nl and I have a general idea what most 25nl or 50nl regs need to do to improve. I haven't played a ton of 2nl so couldn't tell you that but the biggest difference between 50nl and 400nl is that a lot of 50nl regs are sorta playing their cards/hud stats whereas the 400nl players are thinking a lot more deeply about the ranges going on and how to adjust to various perceived leaks in other players' games. Not to say they're perfect or anything I'm sure the average 5knl reg would laugh at all the leaks I have in my game I'm just trying to help you understand at least the difference between the micros and midstakes.

It gets harder as you move up because the better players are better and the fish aren't as bad or as numerous. If you think someone who is a fish at 2nl plays anywhere close to the same game as a weak player at nosebleed stakes, you need a reality check.

Andy Beal made his own level at the nose bleed stakes.

"The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King" is a good read.

He won and lost millions.

Anytime there is more money on the line in anything in life people are going to take it more seriously.

i play only omaha ring and here is my take on what i saw when i moved up to higher stakes, and i am pretty sure there are general similarities to moving up in holdem.

there was a time a few years back that i had a decent roll built up from microstakes on PS and I decided to try my hand with it on the $1 and $2 tables. I had been watching the tables for some time and came to the unfortunate conclusion that a lot of the play at those levels was much crazier than the micros and looser and therefore presented a nice opportunity.

it took a while but eventually lost everything and I felt beat up and dazed, I didn't know what hit me. the play was so different that it totally took me out of my game. betting was way more aggressive, it was in a different league, and I tried to adjust, but because of the constant aggression, I had completely lost my read if I was ahead in a hand, maybe up against the nuts or got outdrawn on the river, something i normally prided myself on. It seemed other players knew too often if i was sitting real strong, and i was paying off too much too often which i don't normally do but the aggro betting was sucking me into too many hands i couldn't get away from.

the conclusion i came to was as you go higher in the levels, the players are much better and even the ones that may not be winners overall are more difficult to take advantage of. I have not figured out a way to effectively compensate for what i experienced but I do plan on returning at some point and giving it another try. the one mistake i made that is obvious in hindsight but at the time I did not have the experience that I do now, was jumping multiple levels from where I was normally playing. currently i will do it one level at a time.

MisterLongFace said:

i play only omaha ring and here is my take on what i saw when i moved up to higher stakes, and i am pretty sure there are general similarities to moving up in holdem.

there was a time a few years back that i had a decent roll built up from microstakes on PS and I decided to try my hand with it on the $1 and $2 tables. I had been watching the tables for some time and came to the unfortunate conclusion that a lot of the play at those levels was much crazier than the micros and looser and therefore presented a nice opportunity.

it took a while but eventually lost everything and I felt beat up and dazed, I didn't know what hit me. the play was so different that it totally took me out of my game. betting was way more aggressive, it was in a different league, and I tried to adjust, but because of the constant aggression, I had completely lost my read if I was ahead in a hand, maybe up against the nuts or got outdrawn on the river, something i normally prided myself on. It seemed other players knew too often if i was sitting real strong, and i was paying off too much too often which i don't normally do but the aggro betting was sucking me into too many hands i couldn't get away from.

the conclusion i came to was as you go higher in the levels, the players are much better and even the ones that may not be winners overall are more difficult to take advantage of. I have not figured out a way to effectively compensate for what i experienced but I do plan on returning at some point and giving it another try. the one mistake i made that is obvious in hindsight but at the time I did not have the experience that I do now, was jumping multiple levels from where I was normally playing. currently i will do it one level at a time.

Click to expand...

very interesting post. yes ,i know exactly what you are talking about and i have been through this exact same thing endless times. of course they are more aggro in higher stakes. and it is really difficult to keep up with them if you dont have the kind of bankroll to not care about losing 2,3 or 10BI's. only then can you truely play comfortable there.

I enjoyed reading this and thought that there were loads of good points made. In my opinion the main reason is fear. I accept that there are very good players with lots of experience playing high stakes but fear is the main reason that good successful players at lower levels cannot compete with the high rollers.