I can't help but notice that I tend to win at higher buyin games, whether it be tournament or cash but get run over/crushed at lower...

example 1)
I used to play $200NL at a local casino and did okay some days broke even but more times I'd have a pretty bad/good session...

I moved to $500NL 2/5 and never looked back, I ended up crushing several sessions and I could read people / apply pressure to people easier. This happened for a few years until I moved away from the casino.

Overall I felt like I knew how players played at the $500NL since I assumed (correctly?) that they understood poker and understood pot odds, hands that played well/didn't play well in certain spots etc. In the $200NL any turn/river was a scare card.

example 2) Bovada Zone (anonymous tables but people swear its the softest games)
When I play $25NL Bovada zone, I get absolutely demolished, I've noticed this on several occasions I can't distinguish a LAG/TAG/etc and it's harder to give credit/not give credit etc...

At $100NL Zone, I played like everyone is decent and that players understand certain concepts. Again, sometimes I get extremely surprised by people's actions but I get it in good way more often then not and even though I do get surprised by just absurd hands, it just seems fewer and farther between.

Is this a volume thing, an adjustment thing...or both...is it possible that I should just stick to slightly higher stakes? Moving outside the box, is it possible for particular players to be able to win at 5/10NL but lose at .10/.25 NL?

this is variance

clearly you're looking back

No. Six is correct. Just to add though, this is actually a common fallacy among new players. They overestimate their skills and assume incorrectly that they would have better results at higher levels because their advanced skills will translate better at these levels. There is an old running joke on these forums when new posters write about their troubles at lower levels and hinting that they'd do better at higher levels, you will often hear old heads say, yes you need to move up to where they will respect your raises. This is teasing at this misconception.

The truth is that if you cant beat NL25, you wont be able to beat NL50(rake aside), let alone NL1000.

Another problem you might be having is assuming that your casino NL200 game or even higher in many cases is significantly harder than standard online NL25 games. That will most likely not be the case. Generally online NL25 games will be more difficult than live NL200 tables for example despite the blind difference.

And like six said, variance. Just keep grinding those games. If you are good enough to beat them you will over a larger sample.

Good luck.

Not really, I meant that I never sat down at a live $200NL at that casino and wouldn't consider it unless there was no room at the $500 2/5 game. Not a pride thing maybe a feeble superstition or something even worse...who knows

Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense...variance is a tough pill to swallow since it really has no end : /

I have the same experience in PLO microstakes on Bovada (.50/1 and .10/.25). From looking at my PokerTracker, and just table feel, I think it may be that I am running into more nitty regs grinding the lower stakes tables. The winning hands are the nuts (or some kind of very good hand like nut full house) much more often. At my higher stakes I see 2-pair or aces or instance straights on a board where the flush got there winning the pot. Maybe this applies to you?

Several sessions? How much have you actually played at 2/5?

We hear this a lot (I've reposted this snippet many times). It's not that higher stakes are easier. It's that players who make these kinds of statements are better against a particular type of player and moving up stakes a bit has the effect of table selecting for them so they are playing against tight/predictable players.

This is, however, a symptom of a player with severe limitations to his game that will ultimately hamper his progress - an inability to adjust, an inability to tailor is game to current conditions. They often play a very regimented game by rote. Such players are often referred to as Regfish but may also be lagtards who can't help valuetowning themselves.

These players are Pedro Cerrano - They can't hit a curve ball.



It can also be a case of poor mindset. That they don't take the game seriously unless there's significant money on the line. Which is another big red flag suggesting huge self-discipline issues and a tendency towards degeneracy.

Rake also pays a very significant factor, especially for a marginal player (regfish). But let me be absolutely clear. Someone who is actually good at poker will absolutely crush low stakes.