Higher stakes poker easier?

[GiantBuddha]

I still am not convinced that I know the answer here. I am also not convinced that great players find lower end tables easier than higher end tables. Good poker players can't utilize their skills at tables where people throw their chips around like wedding rice. It's a luck fest; one's skill is less helpful, not more. That's my point anyway - so far no one has given me a convincing argument that this is not the case. I want to be wrong on this since I can't afford big stake tables, but ...

You're definitely wrong on this. Money in poker comes from making better decisions than your opponents do. The worse your opponents play (and the worse decisions they make), the easier it is to make money.

Whether or not you have room to make great plays is totally irrelevant. The only thing that you might be able to say is that there may be a larger difference between a great player and a good one at high stakes than at low stakes. At smaller stakes games, both players may win a similar amount, while at high stakes the great player will win and the good player may break even or even lose.

 

[Bovinity]

I am also not convinced that great players find lower end tables easier than higher end tables.

It is true that every time I watch a high stakes player make a micro stakes video, they usually end up leveling themselves and stacking off by playing right into calling stations while talking into their mic about how soft the tables are and how big their skill edge is as they repeatedly reload at the table.

In fact, I just got done watching a BalugaWhale video this morning where he did just that...talking about how his skill edge was going to be so huge, and then spewing chips for the entire duration of the video.

I'm still looking for a video or something where a pro player crushes micro stakes. Personally, I think people are living in the past and even micro stakes players have evolved. Because if micros were really as soft and terrible and fishy as people claim, pros should be able to sit down and run with absolutely crushing BB/100 values, even with variance and I've yet to see someone demonstrate this.

 

[NCfoldem]

This is a worthy debate I think. Personally, I'm trying to decide if I would have better luck at higher stake tables. The normal logic is "no". I'm not anxious to lose money either, but I haven't seen proof that making good decisions pays off at the micro tables. Making good decisions means that you don't suck out much; I might go a week without sucking out even once. But I don't think I've even had a single day where I didn't get at least 1 bad beat.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Sounds like you may be playing a bit too weak-tight. Do you use tracking software? What's your WTSD? Sample size?

 

[NCfoldem]

That's a whole issue. I don't have the software - I'm working on it. But if I were to estimate, and based on tourney stats (and rightly or wrongly I play cash games roughly the same as I do tourneys) it is very low. My W$WSF (is that the correct abbrev.?) is probably 75 - 85%.

 

[GiantBuddha]

It is true that every time I watch a high stakes player make a micro stakes video, they usually end up leveling themselves and stacking off by playing right into calling stations while talking into their mic about how soft the tables are and how big their skill edge is as they repeatedly reload at the table.

In fact, I just got done watching a BalugaWhale video this morning where he did just that...talking about how his skill edge was going to be so huge, and then spewing chips for the entire duration of the video.

I'm still looking for a video or something where a pro player crushes micro stakes. Personally, I think people are living in the past and even micro stakes players have evolved. Because if micros were really as soft and terrible and fishy as people claim, pros should be able to sit down and run with absolutely crushing BB/100 values, even with variance and I've yet to see someone demonstrate this.

While a coach's results over a few hundred (or thousand) hands are completely irrelevant, I agree with a lot of your points.

The lower stakes have definitely gotten tougher over the years. One of my pet peeves is when a coach goes to make a video at stakes that he rarely plays, then proceeds to make sweeping generalizations about the play at these stakes that he doesn't play anymore. I don't believe in making videos at stakes that I don't play, to the point where I went out to get a small-stakes coach to make those videos.

It's not that I don't think my advice will be unhelpful to a small-stakes player, but different types of videos will be more helpful than live table play outside my realm of recent experience. I'd rather watch a successful small-stakes player make small-stakes videos than watch a mid-high stakes pro outside his comfort zone.

 

[GiantBuddha]

That's a whole issue. I don't have the software - I'm working on it. But if I were to estimate, and based on tourney stats (and rightly or wrongly I play cash games roughly the same as I do tourneys) it is very low. My W$WSF (is that the correct abbrev.?) is probably 75 - 85%.

W$WSF of 75+ is crazy high. Anything above 50 is really high.

W$WSF = Won when saw flop, i.e. how often you win the pot when you take a flop.

W$SD = Won at showdown, i.e. how often you win the pot when you get to the showdown.

WTSD = Went to showdown, i.e. how often you get to the showdown after taking a flop.

 

[NCfoldem]

Sorry. Sorry. Got confused. My W$WSF is very low - I'm sure. I would be surprised if it was even 25%. It's my W$SD which is 75 - 85%. WTSD is very, very low also I/m quite sure - 10% maybe.

W$WSF of 75+ is crazy high. Anything above 50 is really high.

W$WSF = Won when saw flop, i.e. how often you win the pot when you take a flop.

W$SD = Won at showdown, i.e. how often you win the pot when you get to the showdown.

WTSD = Went to showdown, i.e. how often you get to the showdown after taking a flop.

 

[Ronaldadio]

I didnt read all the posts here.

However, playing higher stakes & better players is harder, a lot harder.

You can forget the cards for a start - they don`t make a difference most of the time - NLHE it is rare that the flop improves anyones hand that much.

The rest of this thread seems to be a `bad beat` thread.

When I first started playing poker I was like this "My AA never holds up" "I pushed all in will AK and the muppet called with K10 and hit 10 on the river. He must have known he was dominated" etc, etc, etc.

As someone said, it is a statistic impossibility to get your chips in good everytime and lose. However, what makes losing players is the amount of times they don`t get there chips in good because they can`t read the board or won`t fold a hand that is good but not good enough.

 

[doops]

Interesting.

I've never played a very high stakes tourney, but when I look at the player pool (which I do sometimes for the hell of it), I can't help noticing that there are not a whole lot of players. Might be interesting to observe the play all the way through one of the biggies and see if there are a lot of groaner suckouts (i.e., hands won with garbage). I bet not. I also bet there are fewer LAGs, but that those few don't necessarily do badly.

I regularly play the Double Deuce on Sundays at Full Tilt, which has a $20 buy-in and thus is over my usual buyin limit. I always sat in, as do many others, and the pool is pretty big, although it does not always beat the guarantee level. In that tourney, there are still foolios who (I assume) satted in and are playing badly. But, even though the first two hours have high casualties, there are relatively few horrific suckouts with garbage hands in EP -- unlike freerolls and daily dollar level tourneys. Note, however, that I do not consider a suited connector (if others let it get to the flop cheaply) a crap hand. It's a very valid hand to play cheaply (or even aggressively, if folded to) from late position.

The couple of times I have played tourneys with $200+ buyins, the play was even more careful (albeit aggressive), more thoughtful. Many many fewer idiotic plays. And therefore, to some extent, most players did have a definable range which somewhat favors a skillful player. Not that I am skillful, but I did find it less worrisome to try to guess what the other guy might have and decide accordingly. I could pretty much rule out serious stupid, but couldn't rule out the big bluff. It was less of a crap shoot, more poker -- and quite full of danger. For the most part, I felt I was constantly in danger of being outplayed. I worried that nearly everyone else was better than I am. My perceptions may have been affected by my discomfort.

That's anecdotal rather than statistical, so my observations may not be completely valid.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Sorry. Sorry. Got confused. My W$WSF is very low - I'm sure. I would be surprised if it was even 25%. It's my W$SD which is 75 - 85%. WTSD is very, very low also I/m quite sure - 10% maybe.

If those are even close you're folding WAYYYYY too much. Remember no on ever has shit. I cawl.

 

[RamdeeBen]

Hello. I'v just started out recently playing "properly" By this i mean, I've just started to study poker and learn as much as i can about the game as i can. I asked a similar question too about the bad calls you get at micro stakes and in general bad play which made me wonder weather or not higher stakes would be easier. Obviously not in many ways too, but as a game of skill and playing proper poker i'm inclined to think it would be easier, HOWEVER, i am a noob so i might change my mind in a few months once i learn more.

ps: There is a also another reason i think this. I'm a big fan at looking at peoples ratings etc on "officalpokerranking" website and when i check some of the top guns big wins ROI and profit margin, i also check to see if they have previous micro limit results which most do and must say their results in these are far far worse than their higher stake games, odd or not?

 

[WVHillbilly]

We win money in poker when our opponents make mistakes.

Who makes more mistakes, good players or bad players???

 

[Ronaldadio]

We win money in poker when our opponents make mistakes.

Who makes more mistakes, good players or bad players???

Correct!!!

I think that the players who complain about suckouts do not understand the game or have very little experience.

The fact people suckout now and then is something u have no control over - how u deal with those suckouts u have control over.

To the doom mongers who `always` get their pocket aces bust.

If I said to you "We will spin a coin. Everytime that coin lands on heads I`ll give u $10, everytime it lands on tails you give me $5." You would take the bet? (and this is a normal coin, nothing wrong with it)

However, u just might find that the first 4 times it lands on tails. Does that then turn your `gamble` into a bad one? No.

So, my point. If I had the chance of playing with someone who wants to lay me those odds, I would take it everytime, know that in time u must be a winner.

I think u will find the higher stakes u play the more often in that coinflip above u will be getting $10 for heads and giving out $12 for tails.

Another issue is of course bankroll. You could be the greatest poker player in the World, but if u play $5/ 10 NLHE and only have a $100 bankroll and u r up against a guy with endless cash, u will lose, for a variety of reasons. (main one being blinds!!!)

 

[LuckyChippy]

Sorry. Sorry. Got confused. My W$WSF is very low - I'm sure. I would be surprised if it was even 25%. It's my W$SD which is 75 - 85%. WTSD is very, very low also I/m quite sure - 10% maybe.

This made me lol. Way too weak-tight. You need to see showdowns more. You seemed to only be going to showdown with very strong hands rather than better hands than your opponent. Also your red-line or your non-showdown line will be awful and probably means you will never win at poker unless it improves.

If I said to you "We will spin a coin. Everytime that coin lands on heads I`ll give u $10, everytime it lands on tails you give me $5." You would take the bet? (and this is a normal coin, nothing wrong with it)

However, u just might find that the first 4 times it lands on tails. Does that then turn your `gamble` into a bad one? No.

So, my point. If I had the chance of playing with someone who wants to lay me those odds, I would take it everytime, know that in time u must be a winner.

I think u will find the higher stakes u play the more often in that coinflip above u will be getting $10 for heads and giving out $12 for tails.

I like this analogy a lot, it says everything that needs to be said about this topic.

 

[NCfoldem]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. By the way, I assume that you are all profitable lifetime, correct? Otherwise your advice is worth shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but I mean it.

 

[Trimming1]

Keep grinding

Bad assumption I think. BUT HUGE BUT! I to do not have any experience with big buy-in ring games.

I think most poker schooling, either from books, or articles or forums will concentrate the efforts on understanding the game and at least make an attempt to tighten up true noobs. It is the guy who expects to get lucky that is the target for the 'education'.

That said, watching Poker tourneys, and HSP will show that it seldom makes much of a matter what starting cards one holds, and more matters on how they are played.

So it sort of boils down to being rolled for the bigger games, and being able to withstand the crushing defeats at the fins of the fish......

I too have that nagging suspicion my game is more suited to much bigger buy-ins than I am willing to afford, but alas, barring a miracle, I may never find out...

Keep grinding. I am doing the same thing sir. As my bankroll grows I`m slowly buying into games now that I wouldn`t have played a month ago. My goal presently is to stay at the $3,30 Ko`s. My ROI is at 14% which iknow isn`t great. but I`m cashing in 40%. Most of those are just barely itm. but It IS ITM. Keep grinding, You will get there.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. By the way, I assume that you are all profitable lifetime, correct? Otherwise your advice is worth shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but I mean it.

I am. I mean I certainly need a day job but poker gives me spending cash for extras. I started with a single $50 deposit and I've never redeposited.


Now for someone with real qualifications: GiantBuddha is a LHE professional who also is an instructor at Drag the Bar. His bio is here: http://www.dragthebar.com/poker-coaches/coach.php?username=GiantBuddha

 

[rssurfer54]

even if you think that they will have a tighter range, therefore easier to play against, they will be able to put you on a tighter range as well, since they read hands better.

 

[OnyxPanther]

Not sure how valid this is but if you watch poker after dark. The cash game at like 2-3 in the morning. The pros playing there are very open with their game. Like was stated, "implied odds". Point is this. If you can't manage your way around the losses from marginal players at the lower end then your most likely just gonna lose a bigger chunk trying to move into higher stakes. Unlike the saying, "the best defense is a good offense.' I think poker relies on the best defense being a good defense. If you do move into higher stakes it is likely that you will weed out someone calling your allin with 68 assuming your chip stack is proportional to theirs.

 

[Ronaldadio]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. By the way, I assume that you are all profitable lifetime, correct? Otherwise your advice is worth shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but I mean it.

Yes I am. My main game is PLO8

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Not sure how valid this is but if you watch poker after dark. The cash game at like 2-3 in the morning. The pros playing there are very open with their game.

They play deep and with antes, don't they? Also, they're on TV.

 

[dmorris68]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. By the way, I assume that you are all profitable lifetime, correct? Otherwise your advice is worth shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but I mean it.

Totally uncalled for. You don't have to be a winning player to offer advice. Obviously that's ideal and it gains you more credibility, but lots of people are better at teaching a skill than practicing it. A blanket statement that their advice is worthless, makes your opinion even more worthless.

And yeah, GiantBuddha pretty much owns you.

 

[feitr]

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it. By the way, I assume that you are all profitable lifetime, correct? Otherwise your advice is worth shit. Sorry to be so blunt, but I mean it.

Yea dude, I hear you. I'd just ignore all the haters, you clearly are on the right track. If you have a W$WSF of 10-20% and W$SD of 75% that is really solid. It basically just means that you soul read everybody you play against (most players can't win more than 50% at showdown because they don't soul read players like you do). Just ignore everybody that says you need a more balanced W$WSF and W$SD - there is no need to win pots where you don't have the nuts or near nuts. Even if they might be bluffing, you need at least three of a kind or a straight to call down the 75/50 nits at 1c/2c in order for it to be profitable.

Also what you said in the OP is absolutely correct. I can't stand it when i have AA and some fishcake calls a 3B with 86o and then shoves a 59K flop and hits his gutshot. There is just no way at all to combat that sort of play. It's much easier to play vs good players, since they make mistakes much more rarely. If a fish 3Bs say 50%, I have no way of knowing whether or not he has 96o or 23o or maybe even something strong like A7o - just so hard to play against fish like this that just play really awful poker but always win the pots.

Btw, since you are clearly a quality player that knows what he is doing, I'd just give the high stakes games a go even if you aren't rolled for them. If you were feeling really up for it, you might even try 5c/10c if you could play high stakes like that without being scared of losing that much money in a hand. If you go broke it's almost certainly bad luck and you can just redeposit (if you don't have money to redeposit you could sell house, prostitute yourself, etc. if it came to that). The most important thing is to trust your instincts and to ignore the "advice" of people who are just trying to sidetrack you.

 

[OnyxPanther]

Totally uncalled for. You don't have to be a winning player to offer advice. Obviously that's ideal and it gains you more credibility, but lots of people are better at teaching a skill than practicing it. A blanket statement that their advice is worthless, makes your opinion even more worthless.

And yeah, GiantBuddha pretty much owns you.

Poker is a game of retrospect... You might not win a pot or a tournament but I guarantee if you look back at your games or the hand just played you will learn something to be applied in the future. Reflect, Apply, Reflect, Apply. If you could remember them all at any given time then you would have 300+ poker books and over 20 pros on the websites trying to explain and teach.

<playing for 10yrs agressivley and still make noob mistakes on occasion.