Hi all,

The backstory is that I've been playing with the idea of mixing some .25/.50 into my game, while mostly sticking at .10/.20. I've got the bankroll for it (based on Xhad's post) and I've been doing well at .10/.20 for a few thousand hands now (about 4000 - not many, I know, but enough to convince me I don't suck terribly compared with the others at this level). I know I have lots of room for improvement, but I can already see players I've been beating at.10/.20 sitting at the .25/.50 tables, cutting down on my anxiety about being horribly outclassed.

So last night the .10/.20 tables verged on the unplayable (2 tables full of nit regulars) so I thought - OK, let's dabble 20 hands in .25/.50.

Lots of tables playing. Moderately high players/flop. All of the highest P/F tables had longish waitlists so I joined a table with 9 players that seemed to have just started (several players were waiting for BB to get in).

This is by far the most loose/passive table I have seen in a long time. For the first while, there were 4-5 players to most flops for a single bet. I kept hitting crappy cards, so couldn't capitalize (until one beautiful hand later, where I made about 12BB), but was drooling at the mouth.

I'm not expecting this to be typical, so I'm keeping a level head. But I'm wondering what people think about the following things.

1) .25/.50 often seems to have more tables going than .10/.20 (at least on Stars). Is it possible for a lower-stake game to be harder than a higher-stake game just because fish prefer quarters to dimes? (or similar reason)

The reason for this question is that it might make me accelerate the jump to .25/.50, given that I've got a bankroll for it.



2) Is a table that has just started more likely to be populated by unskilled players? I did seem to notice that as time went on some of the better .10/.20 regulars started to appear around the table (at which point I went to bed).

I really suck at 6-max, though I'm actually working to understand HU play because I can't resist the lure. So starting tables seems a poor choice (too much time in the 6-max range) for now. However, if it were this profitable, I'd have to reconsider.

Thanks for any insight you can offer!

1 no
2 yes

Ps link to xhad tread/post please?

Just to be clear - I don't think I suck at 6max because I'm incapable of learning the concepts. I suck at 6max because I've never put mental energy into it and only use it to fritter away time at .02/.04

I'm still plugging leaks at FR, so I've not made time for working on 6max.

As for HU - what can I say. The dark side is calling....

Thanks! Given your post in the other thread about playing at these levels, the answer to #1 is actually a lot more informative than it might seem!

The Xhad post is in the library - here's a direct link.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...-short-473880/

1) It is possible but not likely in large samples. It is entirely possible that on a given night that softest game between the two limits would be at the higher limit. Also, it could be possible that the leaks or strengths of your own game fit better with the style of a different limit. Still, the general rule is that the games get harder as you move up. My recommendation would be to add soft .25/.50 games to your normal selection.

2) It is sometimes the case that weaker players join new tables. It depends. Learning 6m eventually will matter. You can stick with FR now if you want. Also, if games fill quickly you have little exposure.

For those 3 limit i have around 125k hand played!

Even tho it aint impressif has win rate,it shows u with decent sample size hands that as u get higher its harder at any level 95% of the time if not 99..

Wr at .05/.1 4 bb
Wr at .1/.2 2.7bb
Wr at .25/.5 1.8 bb

And to have a good update for u , this is all played from summer 2011 till now...

Ty for link

4k hands is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too small for you to know if you should move up. Having said that, why not take a shot for fun and see what happens? If you crash and burn, it's still just beer money, so no biggie.

Don't over-think this imo.

Hi Montrealcorp - thanks for sharing those numbers. They confirm your statement about games progressively getting harder as you move up stakes, but they also suggest that the difference is not night/day, at least at these levels. Good to know!

I agree, if you simply look at the BB/100 hands. That's why I haven't posted anything in the stats thread yet. But, I'm also looking at things like how often I see people pull idiotic plays (e.g. open limping CO repeatedly, or carrying MPBK to showdown against multiple players) and how I think my judgment rates relative to such people.

If I didn't overthink things I don't think I'd be on this forum! However, point taken. Truthfully, it's not a question of shifting up 100% of my play. Why does it always seem like people frame moving up as an either/or thing? I'm going to amoeba myself up by starting with something like a 10% pseudopod of my play shifting to the new level. If it finds good foraging, the rest of the body will gradually follow.

I make all my moves like this .. take a shot, get crushed (just run bad usually), build back up and try again. If you don't want to bust just set BB amounts to move down and don't let your ego get the better of you.

Table selection can be a bit tougher as you don't know the regs from the recs until you play enough hands to identify the regs. (Not that there are .25/.5 regs, but other good players trying to move up).