R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
Why are people so quick to jump on someone just because they want to try start at 1000nl after experiencing 100nl?
In all honestly people giving advice on 1000nl when they have actually have never played it before and most likely no one in this thread has been anywhere near 1000nl so actually answering the question is like asking a micro stake player who plays 2nl the differences between 2nl and 100nl.
People just assume bigger stakes = bigger ballers which of course is the likely hood but there is only "so much better" people get. I've seen many of good players who actually have a higher win rate at 1000nl over 600nl..etc..over a decent sample of hands.
If you have the money OP and want to try it out, then by all means try it out. You might well struggle but you might be one of the speical ones who can beat 1000nl, noone really knows unless they try. Many of todays good players took shots at big limits and proved to be very profitable all the way up to the highest limits.
Jungleman anyone?
By the way, I know WVH plays something like 100/200nl and he has a welath of knowledge about cash games to the point of where does it really end? Why couldn't WVHBily get on a thinking level of say a 1000nl player and crush these limits? Maybe because he has never tried but the distinctive difference between good players must be so little surely. I struggle with topics like this because people can only be "so good" in my opinion.
What REALLY makes someone who has al the knowledge and thinking plays of the best at 100/200nl yet just coulden't cut it at1000nl? what difference does a 1000nl player have over a 200nl player?
Another example is nanonoko, he grinds consistently an okish winrate at all limits. However his 1000nl win rate is just as good if not better than 600nl...so wheres the logic in this that the difference in skill is that big?
Oh andjust another example "0Human0" absolute monster. Why does he crush 2000nl by a bigger winrate than say 1000nl over 300k hand samples on BOTH limits?
I don't think anyone can say the sample sizes are not good enough either as 300k HAS to be.
$5/$10 NLH SH 392,942 $131,583 1.67
$10/$20 NLH SH 315,379 $284,840 2.26
$25/$50 NLH SH 234,505 $232,695 0.99
$3/$6 NLH SH 167,652 $15,054 0.75
I'd say these was all reasonable sample sizes so why is 2000nl so much better than his 1000nl and why is 600nl is so bad in comparison to his 5000nl?
In all honestly people giving advice on 1000nl when they have actually have never played it before and most likely no one in this thread has been anywhere near 1000nl so actually answering the question is like asking a micro stake player who plays 2nl the differences between 2nl and 100nl.
People just assume bigger stakes = bigger ballers which of course is the likely hood but there is only "so much better" people get. I've seen many of good players who actually have a higher win rate at 1000nl over 600nl..etc..over a decent sample of hands.
If you have the money OP and want to try it out, then by all means try it out. You might well struggle but you might be one of the speical ones who can beat 1000nl, noone really knows unless they try. Many of todays good players took shots at big limits and proved to be very profitable all the way up to the highest limits.
Jungleman anyone?
By the way, I know WVH plays something like 100/200nl and he has a welath of knowledge about cash games to the point of where does it really end? Why couldn't WVHBily get on a thinking level of say a 1000nl player and crush these limits? Maybe because he has never tried but the distinctive difference between good players must be so little surely. I struggle with topics like this because people can only be "so good" in my opinion.
What REALLY makes someone who has al the knowledge and thinking plays of the best at 100/200nl yet just coulden't cut it at1000nl? what difference does a 1000nl player have over a 200nl player?
Another example is nanonoko, he grinds consistently an okish winrate at all limits. However his 1000nl win rate is just as good if not better than 600nl...so wheres the logic in this that the difference in skill is that big?
Oh andjust another example "0Human0" absolute monster. Why does he crush 2000nl by a bigger winrate than say 1000nl over 300k hand samples on BOTH limits?
I don't think anyone can say the sample sizes are not good enough either as 300k HAS to be.
$5/$10 NLH SH 392,942 $131,583 1.67
$10/$20 NLH SH 315,379 $284,840 2.26
$25/$50 NLH SH 234,505 $232,695 0.99
$3/$6 NLH SH 167,652 $15,054 0.75
I'd say these was all reasonable sample sizes so why is 2000nl so much better than his 1000nl and why is 600nl is so bad in comparison to his 5000nl?
Last edited:
Cafeman
Legend
Silver Level
So you can have an opinion but we can't - unless you are a 1000NL reg?
Nah, surely the hilarious bit is kinda what you alluded to. Who on earth would ask us lot about 1000NL when most of us can't beat 5NL lmao
B
baudib1
Legend
Silver Level
Surely you've been around poker long enough to recognize someone who can beat mid-high stakes and someone who can't. I'm pretty sure if you could have talked to Jungleman or Dwan when they were ascending the ranks, they could give you incredibly detailed reasons why certain plays work and what people's ranges are in a certain spot. I know for sure that when Phil Galfond was breaking into high stakes it was obvious to anyone reading his stuff that he was an incredibly high-thinking player.blah blah blah blah blah balh
Jungleman anyone?
At the very least, they will tell you more about the game and what they need to do to improve and move up than, "I'm an action player and I like high-stakes players because sometimes they make big bluffs."
There are so many things that go into being a big winning player and moving up levels is not at all easy in any way, shape or form. Some people just adapt quicker. There are factors that go beyond knowing and understanding the game, such as BRM and tilt control and not playing while doing lines of blow off a hooker's ass.
1. 300k hands isn't really a ton. For sure it is not enough to even out all variance.
2. He could have gotten better as he moved up. This is actually natural,but maybe his learning curve was ahead of the increase in competition.
3. Maybe he decided to bumhunt more often.
R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
My opinion is based on facts more than anything, I don't proclaim to know anything about cash because quite frankly I don't. I'm just assuming like all of us I guess they are harder to some degree, but to what point? Surely a wealth of knowledge at one limit makes a competent player competent at 100nl/ 600nl as well as 1000nl for example.
Just when everyone starts criticizing and saying you will go bust etc surely don't know that, as noone I don't think has played 1000nl in this thread and if they have and went busto themselves, doesn't mean he will.
Another example is some russian player called "innerspy" who is a pokerstars pro. He can't beat 600nl over 800k hands so one would assume he should drop down. You then look at his 1000nl winrate and he is a winner over 600k hands to 1.05 winrate so I don't get the logic of the difference being so huge. I know, I know, it's not 100nl but still the same difference applies.
However you look at his closest to 100nl limit is 200nl and the results are interesting in my opinion and quite a good indication of something in regards to this thread. He's only marginally winning to 1.41BB/100 yet make that huge jump to 1000nl and he has a very similar winrate to 200nl. Hand sample sizes are near enough the same and we're talking 600K+ hands at both limits, so again is 1000nl REALLY that much different?
Just when everyone starts criticizing and saying you will go bust etc surely don't know that, as noone I don't think has played 1000nl in this thread and if they have and went busto themselves, doesn't mean he will.
Another example is some russian player called "innerspy" who is a pokerstars pro. He can't beat 600nl over 800k hands so one would assume he should drop down. You then look at his 1000nl winrate and he is a winner over 600k hands to 1.05 winrate so I don't get the logic of the difference being so huge. I know, I know, it's not 100nl but still the same difference applies.
However you look at his closest to 100nl limit is 200nl and the results are interesting in my opinion and quite a good indication of something in regards to this thread. He's only marginally winning to 1.41BB/100 yet make that huge jump to 1000nl and he has a very similar winrate to 200nl. Hand sample sizes are near enough the same and we're talking 600K+ hands at both limits, so again is 1000nl REALLY that much different?
R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
Yeah I can understand that to a degree. Players seem to stack much lighter the higher limits you go and it's more of a mind game.
By the way, I totally understand your last post...I just struggle to understand what REALLY is the difference apart from maybe aggression..because you look at winrates and you see one who is just about beating 100nl/200nl for 600k+ hands then see their 1000nl rates with the same hand samples and they kind of contradict what everyone says about the HUGE difference in 100nl and 1000nl.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
You're wrong about a lot here.
I play 10nl ATM and I'm rolled for 25nl. On FTP I played 100nl and never even a single hand higher online. I would undoubtedly get CRUSHED playing even at 200nl these days (and with even fewer fish perhaps lower). I do not have the time (nor the desire) required to beat the games at those levels.
Every step up in stakes beyond say 50nl is probably a tenfold increase in AVERAGE skill level and it takes a ton of work to go up each level. Yes there are huge fish at all stakes but so many fewer the higher you go especially these days with all the US troubles. Once you get to 100nl+ you'll find a lot more "pros" who rely solely on poker for their income than you do fish.
Stick even the best 100nl player online right now into an average 1000nl game and he will be the biggest fish at the table.
LuckyChippy
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Lol Ram, let me put it this way (as I already have).
Everything a 100nl reg does, a 1000nl reg does better. Even if it's a tiny bit better they do it better and that makes them tougher to beat. You can have all the poker knowledge in the world, it's about who can apply it best in 15 seconds and playing as well as you can as much of the time as possible.
Everything a 100nl reg does, a 1000nl reg does better. Even if it's a tiny bit better they do it better and that makes them tougher to beat. You can have all the poker knowledge in the world, it's about who can apply it best in 15 seconds and playing as well as you can as much of the time as possible.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
dwbrown7680
Legend
Silver Level
Jumping from 100-1000 anything is setting yourself up for failure because of the lack of knowledge and playing styles. The understanding of the game is about 20-50x better for most players at 1k nl than it is at 100nl, but don't take our word for it, find out for yourself!
R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
pokerstars 1000nl must be full of more fish then I guess than 100nl when you consider the better winrates of the same player over the same amount of hands. I guess you will probably say 700k hands isn't a big enough sample and variance hasn't ironed out
Guess we'll have to wait another 4 million hands or so.
By the way, I'm not disputing the average player is better at 1000nl but OP was referring to how much of a difference and going of some of the top players...in terms of winrate...there doesn't seem all that much difference between them at 200nl and then 1000nl even if a good player at 1000nl does what a good 100nl player slightly better
R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
Is this from your personal experience that a 1000nl player has a 20-50x better understanding of the game? That's quite a difference by the way 20-50.
If he wants to take a shot, then I guess it's not a bad thing if it doesn't cripple his roll and the extra experience he gains from it will lead him to crushing the 100nl and moving up to 1000nl quicker any how!
dwbrown7680
Legend
Silver Level
Is this from your personal experience that a 1000nl player has a 20-50x better understanding of the game? That's quite a difference by the way 20-50.
If he wants to take a shot, then I guess it's not a bad thing if it doesn't cripple his roll and the extra experience he gains from it will lead him to crushing the 100nl and moving up to 1000nl quicker any how!
I only have experience in nl up to 100nl with some shots at 200nl but I have experience in plo all the way up to 1k plo and feel it can't be that different. The difference in a 100plo player to a 1k plo player is just miles and leagues, even the bad ones.
R
RamdeeBen
Legend
Silver Level
By the way I'm interested in knowing.
Is anyone capable of explaining the hand samples of say 500k-800k at 100nl/200nl/600nl/1000nl for the same player being either a better win rates at 1000nl or equal in terms of win rate if the limits play so very different as you say? How is this even possible that one can succeed at the higher limit and fair much better? If you can explain that to me without saying variance (As this is highly unlikely) then I'd love to hear it genuinely.
Is anyone capable of explaining the hand samples of say 500k-800k at 100nl/200nl/600nl/1000nl for the same player being either a better win rates at 1000nl or equal in terms of win rate if the limits play so very different as you say? How is this even possible that one can succeed at the higher limit and fair much better? If you can explain that to me without saying variance (As this is highly unlikely) then I'd love to hear it genuinely.
TheGenera1
Visionary
Silver Level
I was watching the high stakes tables on PS today and there is always one fish at the table. A fish so bad, that even 10nl regs could massacre. Every day I watch the HSP tables for at least 20 minutes while I eat or w/e and there is always an almighty fish who is playing 1 maybe 2 tables and is calling and raising with 52o The moment this fish gets busted, the rest of the table sits out.
Obviously I'm not saying the high stakes are easy because you focus on the fish, but what I am trying to make a point of, is that if you can manage to break even against the regs, then the profit will come from the humongous fish and the rakeback.
Obviously I'm not saying the high stakes are easy because you focus on the fish, but what I am trying to make a point of, is that if you can manage to break even against the regs, then the profit will come from the humongous fish and the rakeback.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
Some people actually work on their game and get better as they move up and yeah there is always variance too.
absoluthamm
<==Poker Face
Silver Level
You're not going to profit that much off of one fish if the rest of the players at the table you're sitting at are regs. Think of it, if it were all equal(which it's obviously not) and the fish gave up their whole buyin and left, each person at a 6max table would get 20bb of the fish's money, at FR, 12.5bb. The rest of the time you're playing against regs. Hardly worth it for 1 table. You need multiple tables with multiple fish on them that you're going to be able to spread that money around to make it worth while, unless you have an advantage over those regs.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
You won't even actually get that much because the rake will eat some as well.