Has anyone found a bit higher stakes easier than micro-stakes?

[jeffman123]

If you can't exploit micro-stake players who are probably gonna be making either WAAAAY to many folds or WAAAY too many calls, how are you ever gonna develop a strategy that exploits players who don't make nearly as many mistakes?

 

[Alizona]

In the micros, you can have players who are extremely good at poker but don't wish to play for a lot of money. I am in that category, although "extremely good at poker" is obviously debatable. So the micros has a mix of every type of player from extremely novice to extremely professional. This makes micros tough because you will face the widest range of player types.

High stakes pretty much weeds out the novices and weaker players over time, leaving only the better players in the shark pool. But this also means there's not as wide of a range of player types, so perhaps that's the reason why high stakes might seem "easier". Just my opinion on it.

 

[PointedTip]

It is the difference between playing "loose" (micro) and playing tighter (high stakes). Like many have pointed-out, it is good to learn from both play styles.

I play micros to just enjoy poker with as little stress as possible.

 

[garibe]

I have been playing micros/freerolls for the past 4 months with relative ease after I understood these things:

- They ALWAYS HAVE IT!; Dont fool yourself, there are way less bluffers in micros (early/mid stages) than in medium/high stakes.

- Avoid CALLING ALL INS; yeah, you will be a nit.

- Do create an strategy fot the game you play (is it satellite, small field mtt, big field mtt, etc.); No strategy means that you are just relying on luck imo.

The problem is, I havent played high stakes so I really dont know if would be easier than micros.

One thing is certain, on the long run higher stakes are harder and will cripple your bankroll (I usually see a lot of micro players winning one big mtt, then their graph goes to south of heaven).

Just wanted to share my thoughts.

 

[TeUnit]

I think another thing to consider is the lowest stakes often have the highest rake %, and that can definitely impact your win rate.

 

[Jabbadanutz]

Micros

I find the micros are the easiest but the amount you profit is so small you have to be in high school to appreciate it!

 

[DonkArmyFish]

absolutely, Look I am not afraid to say I have BRM, I play the games i want to when i want to with the money I have available in the last month I have FT the 215 PKO 3 times and made day 2 of the $215 main event, yet in the games under $33-$55 I can't get anything rolling.

I got 7th in Moss event 1, but even I was surprised how much run good you need over 11 hours.

I love the 3-6 hour games like a $215 4k gtd or something.

I just find they are a little easier on your mental health.

 

[poncho0296]

it dedends or maybe the games i play it is 50 50

 

[Plut41]

I am microstakes player but I think it is true to some extent. There are many players, they play any cards, call and raise evething and do some crazy moves all the time.

 

[beatlebug]

Not I I haven't made a better game in a higher stakes tourney than the microstakes. I have made better in the microstakes than the higher stakes ones. Good luck to all you who play.

Beatlebug.

 

[IntenseHeat]

If we are talking about tourneys, then I can't say that I've seen much difference. Of course the level of play in any buy-in tournament is going to be higher than in a freeroll. However, there are going to still be those players that are going try to imitate the aggressive play they see on TV, as well as those that haven't spent a moment of time studying, but are sure they know how to play the game. In other words, there will be donks and you will occasionally get donked.

As far as cash games, as I said earlier, I prefer to play $50NL and up. I wouldn't exactly say it's easier. In fact, I'd say that I tend to encounter better players at the higher stakes. But I have found that I usually do better against better players, because I have a better understanding of how they play. That's not to say that you won't encounter loose/aggressive players that are going to try run the table over, but you're not typically going to find yourself at a table full of them. Also, I find that at, let's say $200NL, you're much less likely to see someone come over your 3x raise with a 100x 3-bet just for shits and giggles than you are in a $2NL game.

 

[Suns of Beaches]

na ihr alle da draussen ☮️🔥 wie wäre es mit headsup Turniere cardchat freerolls ?ist bestimmt auch eine idee wert😁👍zb verschiedene headsups bronze members gegeneinander . 5 mal erster dann bist du silber. usw usw also Aufstiegs Chancen dann von silber nach 5mal erster weiter aufsteigen. findet ihr das auch gut? wäre doch hammer😁👍💪 ciao viel spass euch allen gl 2 all ☮️🙋🏻*♂️

please stop spamming the thread. if you want to get platinum member you have to write quality posts in english. what you are writing is neither english nor quality. thanks.

 

[Spheremaster]

Hi all, micros are the easiest, but profit is so small...

have a nice day

 

[feisas7991]

YES!!! well sort of. For me its way more hard to beat 2.2 dollar mtt compared to 11 usd.
Play if bankroll allows I would recommend to start playing above 1 usd when you start. Since we dont like burning money i would recommend playing 3.3-5.5usd range exclusively and here is why: it is because your learning curve willl be much steeper and lets say 5.5 usd game that 0,55, due to players playing a bit more proper ranges ( make no mistake,. its still absolute donk fest and most likely if you hzve to ask you are one of them ): ) and skill set you gain is more applicable at higher stakes. For reference around i started playing 0.02-0.5 usd sngs when i started and every time i moved up it felt like i am hitting walls.
Hope this helps and Good Luck!

 

[fundiver199]

- They ALWAYS HAVE IT!; Dont fool yourself, there are way less bluffers in micros (early/mid stages) than in medium/high stakes.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, but until you have developed good hand reading skills and the ability to sniff out bluffs, you will find life in the micros much easier and likely also more profitable, if you avoid making to many hero calls on the river. And you are not going to be exploited for overfolding, because player pools are huge, and nobody are going to have that information or know how to use it.

Another good general tip is to avoid getting sucked into silly situations. Like you have J3 offsuit in the big blind, 3 people limp before you, you knock your option and see a flop like QJ5 2-tone. Then just check-fold and move on to the next hand. This also makes it easier to multitable, because you dont have to use brainpower figuring out what to do on different runouts facing different weird actions from fishy limpers.

 

[tourpro99]

yes

Yes, definitely. Well, up to a point. At the smallish stakes there seem to be a lot of pretty decent grinders trying to build their bankroll. At the medium stakes, seems to be more folks just plopping in their money to have some fun. But at 100 and higher I think it swings around to where it is tougher again, playing against a lot of pros.

 

[Pokerpoet2]

Since micro-stakes is kind of its own game.
Or are higher stakes almost always more challenging?

Easier as in easier to turn a profit.

Personally I have found higher stake games harder to play, because it is always in the back of my mind, that I could lose more money, playing a lot of low stake points games I tried to move straight to the High Roller games, and found I was losing badly.
It became apparent to me that the only thing that changed besides the buy-in price was ME!
I played more cautiously than I usually do and started to fold more hands, that I should have played, it is hard to move up in stakes because there is much more at stake, and if you can get your head around this you can find you play just as good at higher stakes as you do at lower levels.
We all have moments, when it is time to move up in stakes, even when we decide to move from 10 Cent games to 50 Cent games, or even $1.00 buy-ins, and it takes time to settle in and become comfortable with playing in higher buy-ins, this is a good reason why we should follow the 1% buy-in rule and only risk moving up when our Bankroll allows us to, so we can become comfortable playing at higher levels.
Poker is Poker and the only thing that really changes when we move up is our approach towards the game, Be patient, keep the game Fun, and always remember-----

When the fun Stops, STOP!

 

[Adi8877]

I can agree with most of the above.

If you can't beat micro how do you expect beat low, mid level? Otherwise, there are certain tourneys what definitely have weaker field on low, mid levels compare to some micros. I agree, less bluffs on micro, less aggressive, basically everything what fundriver wrote, the game is more simplified, even like that the variance is a b*tch.

Playing on micros, and deciding from one day to another play higher level permanently have significant financial side, too. I don't share the common 100buyin bankroll bullsh*t. I think playing on low, mid level tourneys average field 500-1000 players, you need 200-400buyin, personally i think one of the main reason why players burn their bankroll on any level - even if they play perfect, what nobody does - because of they read, heard somewhere the 100BI 'rule' so even if they burnt it they stuck with that or leave.

Someone wrote above stupid things happens on higher level, too. I would say variance is a bigger b*tch how they advertise.

So even if you find good tourneys on higher levels, it is mostly a bankroll issue, of course you can play 1-2 and hope that will be your lucky tourney. (i think playing av. 10$ buyins, you need at least 3-4k, for 30$ av. buyins need 10-15k+, who has it from micro players where average buyin 2-3$ and not many care much about bm.)

Personally, I don't force to play on higher levels, there are micro sats for that purpose + in the last year was in last 2 tables on low, mid level tourneys (usually 1K+ regs) 30+ times, and i could reach FT only 1 time..... usually relegated some preflop allin 75-80% for me... how i wrote few times above the variance is a b*tch on all level

 

[David macdonald]

I found that the higher stakes was just as bad in fact I seen more crazy players at the higher levels. I was amazed to see this, I believe that it's a gambling thing and the players get some kind of thrill from playing like donks. You see these players get lucky and build a quick bankroll but they never make it through the latter stages. Then they just buy into higher stakes on tilt until they are broke.

 

[Adi8877]

I found that the higher stakes was just as bad in fact I seen more crazy players at the higher levels. I was amazed to see this, I believe that it's a gambling thing and the players get some kind of thrill from playing like donks. You see these players get lucky and build a quick bankroll but they never make it through the latter stages. Then they just buy into higher stakes on tilt until they are broke.

Sure, I see their stats, too, they rarely end up in the top 1-5% of the given tourney. There are plenty like that, especially the preflop or flop allin maniacs, whose pushing in 100+BBs, but it is really annoying when you got beaten by them in days, weeks long run by runners, 1-3 outs, or at least 75-80% preflop chance for you.... And they are everywhere (from micro-mid level sure, because i see them), just an other thing why i don't believe in the 100BI rule....

Mostly in these cases i run out from patiance, too. Especially, if you have 1 at your table, it is impossible to play any poker because of that one, so you are forced to gamble in deep stack phase, too, and even if you find the best chances, it is rarely more than 3-4 to 1 to you, and that's where the common variance, bankroll point of view fails, as it can go insanely long.

Just a high stake profitable - far not the best - player who has similar opinion, (+he is one of those, who shares his monthly profit/loss, and he had half+ year continue loss in tourney grinding (not even the high field 1k+ reg category), what easily eats the 100BI, and i watched enough players, experienced, how it happens, you can say they just get lucky, and they lose their money later, in long run - who cares what happens with them later? - when you are in a long run "bad beat" vs. them, and live in those days, weeks, pretty hard, when you sit long hours everyday, built some stack and you lose vs. them + obviously the rest of the players are there, too)

 

[jordanbillie]

Since micro-stakes is kind of its own game.
Or are higher stakes almost always more challenging?

Easier as in easier to turn a profit.

It's all the same. The majority of players do not know what they are doing. You have mild variations in how the masses play in general at certain stakes, but with experience all stakes are beatable.

 

[Luvepoker]

Each and every level has it own unique style and player pool. While you go up in stakes they players are better and there are less all in players it doe not mean micro stakes are easier. Each are hard in there own way.

 

[garibe]

I only played one "high stake" when I satellite onto a $300 main event on Stars.
It is definitely harder in my opinion. As soon as they see you as a newbie, you will get no rest, they will all try to get your chips.
Had to change my strategy and from super tight I started putting them into very hard decisions. Post flop play gets really tricky too.

But it was just one tournament.

 

[Adi8877]

Each and every level has it own unique style and player pool. While you go up in stakes they players are better and there are less all in players it doe not mean micro stakes are easier. Each are hard in there own way.

Funny how differently we see, experience it. I don't see so huge, unique differences. I see it, till mid level - even higher where i play very rarely, i see in streams, videos -, it is pretty much the same - the allin pusher % -, especially in bounty hunter tourneys, where are plenty sponsored players, and they force the flips. Really don't like to play against them, play those tourneys. Even in the normal tourneys.

Good example, if you open from mid position, pretty sure, you will face with a raise, what usually you can't call either push in all or fold. Often if a call comes, the further players try to steal the blinds with 30/40+BB allins, and their range is really wild.

On low and micro, instead of these aggressive, 50% better players, the allin mania is more simplified, plenty just simply push it in from any position with any pair or any A10o+, some even any suited connector. a bit more gambling there, and often i can't even decide what is in their mind, probably just gambling and build big stack fast or relegate fast. The stealing the blinds intention happens there much less.

 

[jsnake716]

Since micro-stakes is kind of its own game.
Or are higher stakes almost always more challenging?

Easier as in easier to turn a profit.

As usual, reading these comments makes me shake my head. Just listen and think about the logic, these people are NOT professional poker players, meaning they don't make a living playing poker. Why would anyone think if you are having a problem "beating" a certain stake, the answer would be to move up to a higher stake? That just does not make sense, most of what you are reading, is a player who gets a chance to play 1 single $109 tournament or whatever, they are excited and they play super tight and think that OMG I do better in this game than I do in my $1 game. It is because they are playing different not the regs who play the stakes everyday. If you want to become a pro, it takes hard work and you move through the stakes , you don't lose at $1/2 and move to $5/10 and suddenly you are a winning player, poker does not work that way