Is it possible to be a loser in microlimites but to win in average limits?

Personally I feel more comfortable playing in NL25 and NL50 than playing NL2 and NL5 ... unfortunately I do not have enough banking and that gives me a lot of headaches ...

I think it can be true to a certain extent - in particular if both are true: A) you're a newcomer at higher limits B) you are better then majority NL5 field (so you know a thing or two about poker). This way you will gain some success in the beginning at those limits, as you know what you're doing, and players there most likely do know as well (less crazy mindless nl2-5 game). And while you're newcomer for them, you can reap some rewards before they adjust to your game. But once you became a familiar face to them, you will have to evolve really quick or you will get eaten by the regs there.

Considering that you say that you have no BR to play those limits, you most likely play there sporadically and therefore might have an illusion that you will do just as good if you play regularly there. But it can become a reality with constant working on your game and learning FAST.

It's impossible!!! The higher limits are the more skilled players, if you can not beat the weak you beat the mighty? That is my opinion

Denchik43RU said:

It's impossible!!! The higher limits are the more skilled players, if you can not beat the weak you beat the mighty? That is my opinion

Click to expand...

Not true at all. The higher you go the less rake you pay.

I believe that you shouldnt play stakes out of your BR. Its tough to get thru variance and bad beats with a short bankroll.

I dont think you can be a loser or winner at one level and not the other. Make sure you are playing the same way a both. Maybe you are taking more chances at the lower levels.

I do not understand what does the rake, if it comes to the playing field, the opponents (as I understand)

Yes, I too feel more comfortable at mid-stakes, small things quickly, everything is crazy, on average more calmly.

Denchik43RU said:

It's impossible!!! The higher limits are the more skilled players, if you can not beat the weak you beat the mighty? That is my opinion

Click to expand...

to a certian extent i agree but lower limit players offen play the luckinsted of odds

jorge rodriguez said:

Personally I feel more comfortable playing in NL25 and NL50 than playing NL2 and NL5 ... unfortunately I do not have enough banking and that gives me a lot of headaches ...

Click to expand...

Yes, i agree with your point of view. Usually at micros there are a lot of bad players with no lines in their play and it's hard to predict how they play. They gamble a lot on micros and its hard to make a read on them

I think that the higher the limit the more consistent the skill sets. The lower the level, the more varied the skill sets.

jorge rodriguez said:

Personally I feel more comfortable playing in NL25 and NL50 than playing NL2 and NL5 ... unfortunately I do not have enough banking and that gives me a lot of headaches ...

Click to expand...

It is possible, it's similar to mine story, I have more succes whrn I play tournaments with buyins from 10-100$ than in 3$. Maybe due to opponents playing less tight since the stakes are lower

if you're new to the micros dynamics it can happen, but generally no because the higher the level the higher the skill required

So I generally agree that, yes, there are better players as you climb the ladder, so yes, it's going to be harder to win, but....

Game theory says that non-game theory optimal play by others can also hurt you (unless it's head's up). A lot of bad play by a lot of players can basically make the micros a complete crap shoot where no one can overcome the rake. I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but from a mathematical standpoint, it is possible that the poor play of others (which is more common at micros) can hurt you.