Game "Softness"

In a recent, random, semi-macho conversation about online poker I arrived at an odd thought. Could the $12 SnG tournaments (on pokerstars) be softer than the $2.20 and $3.25 ones?

This friend of mine plays online and is essentially a fish. He plays poker his way and doesn't care to really learn or strive to improve. Most of my friends are very similar to him in their way of thinking when it comes to poker and gambling. I was talking about a recent bubble of mine in a $2 tournament (the $3k guarantee) referenced a recent tourney finish of his. He rushed to defend himself by saying "It was an $11 tournament, I don't play those $2 ones. Anything less than $10 is a waste of my time."

Given that I know these guys are fish, I'm wondering if the majority of fish online don't have similar thoughts? If that were the case, then the $10-20 stakes(for SnGs) would probably have the most weak players/SnG. The $2-$9 stakes are probably populated with more people like me (and other CC members?) who are trying to abide by solid BRM and play a solid game.

I guess what I'm wondering is: if you have the $ for it to be reasonable, would you have better results starting at a $10 SnG level instead of the $3 ones?

I can say that the $2.20 180mans on PokerStars are much more softer than the $11 180man´s = are full of dangerous "regs" and experienced pushbotting multitablers like bfizz11 , MI_turtle, boku87 & Co.

I guess I didn't explain myself properly here. I'm not really talking about the "regs" you'll find. At any level you probably want to avoid the regs and go for the fish...the better the regs the more this holds true.

I was mainly referring to the psychology of the Fish in the various buy-in levels. I'm theorizing that the Fish in the $10-20 level will make the mistake of folding too often while the Fish in the lower stakes make the mistake of playing too many hands. In these 45-180 man SNGs playing too many hands becomes a much smaller mistake in the middle-late stages than folding too many hands. I think fish would play tighter/more passive as they value their buy-in more.

Lofwyr said:

I guess I didn't explain myself properly here. I'm not really talking about the "regs" you'll find. At any level you probably want to avoid the regs and go for the fish...the better the regs the more this holds true.

I was mainly referring to the psychology of the Fish in the various buy-in levels. I'm theorizing that the Fish in the $10-20 level will make the mistake of folding too often while the Fish in the lower stakes make the mistake of playing too many hands. In these 45-180 man SNGs playing too many hands becomes a much smaller mistake in the middle-late stages than folding too many hands. I think fish would play tighter/more passive as they value their buy-in more.

Click to expand...

the problem with that is that at an 11 dollar buy in level there aren't many fish to begin with so how a fish would play at that level is really irrelevant. and i don't really think you would want a fish that folds to much you want one that is a calling station and pays off your big hands. The fish you speak of won't pay you off and will probably only play monsters.

There are certainly still fish at the higher levels and a lot of them are there because they think like your friends do.

The question is whether there's enough of them to make the games softer overall than the lower stakes. I don't play those games on Stars so I can't give a definitive answer but I'd certainly be surprised if it were the case - the fish are unlikely to make up for the increased number of solid players that you'll face.

I kind of believe with OP, i have been thinking and especially on FT i believe the game is more likely to be filled with fairly tight, semi solid players at the low levels. i believe part of this is because the amount of freerolls fulltilt have, to win a freeroll requires a reasonable amount of skill, or an amazing amount of luck, (a decent player needs quite alot of luck still to win a freeroll) many of these freeroll players are going to be either very slow losers, very slow winners or break even players, mainly due to the rake, so these are the players who are going to be playing the micro stakes a lot.

another thing to consider is at the low stakes the players are either quite poor, meaning they are more likely to be quite tight with their money, or they are trying to seriously learn poker, serious learners are much better players than experienced fish (or from my experience)

Most fish are people who get home from work and just want a quick game after dinner or w/e, or playing on the piss or hangover or w/e the circumstance, most of these people are going to play with 10$+ mainly because 1 dollar or so means nothing to them.

so although i believe that the regs at higher levels will be better, i believe that there are a higher amount of fish which make the games different, but not much harder than each other.

I have a hard time believing that there are more fish at the $10 level than the $2 level. Once you get into $5 or $10 buyins, there's a number of tougher/tighter grinders that simply put in a ton of volume for profit. You won't find many hardcore grinders at the <$5 levels where even with a huge ROI it's not really worth their time to grind out.

Sure there's players/fish in the $10 tournies, but eventually the cream works its way up. Good/profitable players won't be playing the $2-3 tournies for very long, IMO.

KoRnholio said:

I have a hard time believing that there are more fish at the $10 level than the $2 level. Once you get into $5 or $10 buyins, there's a number of tougher/tighter grinders that simply put in a ton of volume for profit. You won't find many hardcore grinders at the <$5 levels where even with a huge ROI it's not really worth their time to grind out.

Sure there's players/fish in the $10 tournies, but eventually the cream works its way up. Good/profitable players won't be playing the $2-3 tournies for very long, IMO.

Click to expand...

Well, the idea would really only works in bigger fields. I'll agree that there are more+better regs in $10 than $2. Even so, if you're in a 45 person SNG probably at most 9 of the players are tough regs and some 24-30 are fishies. The 180's might see 20-30% decent regs and 50-70% fish. If the fish at the $10 levels are playing worse (as far at late-stage MTT play is concerned) I think the potential for profit is better. You'll be able to get deep and cash big more often (though you might not make the money as often).

To clarify: late-stage MTT play often has everyone at 10bb stacks or less. Frequently the best play is to shove all-in when people fold (or limp) over to you if you have a reasonable hand. As the tables get shorter this becomes even more true(and the definition of "reasonable hand" becomes wider). With ~10BB stacks and shortening table sizes folding too much is a much bigger mistake than playing too many hands.

This is just a theory though as I have very little time logged in higher buy-ins. I'm playing smart BRM so gotta grind those $2-3 games. This is another reason I think you might find more/weaker fish in $10, they have no BRM. I'd say the average person who wants to play good poker has maybe $100-300 to blow on it every month. Player with no BRM will play and lose most of that in $10+ games way over their buy-in level (and consequently sweat more to make the money/play too tight late-stage). Players who want to learn will drop $100-300 and play $2 games to practice solid BRM and move up the normal way. And on the flipside, when these gamblers lose enough at $10 stakes that they have to move down, the money has no value to them and they're more willing to spew it off. Good for a cash game (deep stack/value), bad for big SNGs(short-stack/need fold equity).

Basically, I'm asking to see if anyone who has reasonable experience with both limits can chime in. Do players seem to be tighter near the money/bubble at $10 stakes than the $3 ones?

Lofwyr said:

I'm playing smart BRM so gotta grind those $2-3 games. This is another reason I think you might find more/weaker fish in $10, they have no BRM. I'd say the average person who wants to play good poker has maybe $100-300 to blow on it every month. Player with no BRM will play and lose most of that in $10+ games way over their buy-in level (and consequently sweat more to make the money/play too tight late-stage). Players who want to learn will drop $100-300 and play $2 games to practice solid BRM and move up the normal way.

Click to expand...

Seems like most of the argument is summed up as "fish don't use BRM so they hop in $10 games more often than $2-3 games". While I think this is somewhat true, there's also many fish with only a $50/mo budget and have to play $2-3 games so that they can get their fix throughout the month without resorting to freerolls/play money.

FWIW, the most "normal" (aka, common) way in the past that players have moved up is through practicing poor bankroll management and hitting a lucky streak. This is a common theme among pros when they were still aspiring pros, as well as many internet phenoms. I'm not saying it's right, it surely isn't my style, but historically it has been the most common.

This is another reason why I doubt there are many solid players in the micro games. Those with the skills will simply play higher. It doesn't take much of a bankroll to be comfortable playing $10 buyin tournies. And I don't think its going out on much of a limb to say that there just aren't that many players that are quite skilled and have no bankroll. Of those that match this description, most get backed by other players to play in higher buying tournaments.