Hey folks,

My question is possibly too broad, but something I've been mulling over regarding table selection at my local casino (the Winstar, about an hour north of Dallas/Ft. Worth). Having come up through "home games" in Houston, I grew used to 1/3, and having to use poker as a secondary income stream in the past has meant that only recently has it actually been able to grow. In short, the opportunity to play 1/2 and simply come back in a week if I got coolered a couple of times was quite appealing.

However, it seems from perhaps 300-400 hours of play at 1/2 in the past 6 months or so, efforts to become more skilled have not tended to increase my hourly, and may even be -EV. If anything, my standard deviation has been spiking while the hourly rate has declined dramatically as I repeatedly level myself.

No doubt, 1/2 are the easiest tables in the world, and patient nut-peddling will work - it has netted me about 12BB/hour over that time... most of which had to go to student loan repayment.

That being said, I increasingly suspect learning to play well against the 1/2 player pool specifically and learning to play good poker at any other level are antagonistic concepts - or at a minimum, to continue beating 1/2, I will have to simply ignore the more advanced concepts I want to use to eventually move up. It's probably not GTO for someone to simply never bluff and try to become a good player, but that's exactly what 1/2 (almost always) entails!

With this in mind, I decided to play 1/3 for the last few sessions, for an absurdly small sample size of about 12 hours. These play somewhere in the middle of the 1/2 games, in which 4+ limpers is standard (indeed, I recently joined a table in which the first 3 orbits saw ZERO raises pre-flop) and the 2/5, which plays more like a 2/5/35, and in which the average player tries to channel durrrr's aggression with 9 high (like a boss).

In short, the 1/3 player pool is made up of approximately 10-20% 2/5 regs. waiting for a table, 20-30% absolute fish/donkeys, 20-30% competent players, and the remainder, though more aware of what's going on than the 1/2 bingo-poker players, remain quite bad, tending to overvalue top pair and/or draws and donk off against the tightest player at the table under 60, yours truly. In other words, it's a much more appropriate setting to practice implementing the skills I've been learning from the fine people of 2+2, an ever-growing list of poker books held in high regard (mostly 2+2 works as well), and YT channel analysis from Alec Torelli, Doug Polk, and so forth.

I apologize for the novel-length of the post, but can't be the only person in this position! My question is this: assuming I can replenish my bankroll within 3-4 months from a full-time job, is it GTO to try to move up in stakes to 1/3 despite being insufficiently bankrolled for it, given (1) that it will contribute to becoming a better player in the long run, (2) 1/3 is likely to involve a lower standard deviation than the 1/2 tables described, and (3) success at 1/3 will accelerate my timeline to reach 2/5, which is quite exploitable with a deep 'roll, and strong table/V selection?

P.S., I apologize if this is the incorrect forum, but I've seen a lot of players bouncing between stakes at this locale, and I think a lot of competent guys trying to make it in poker have similar interest/hesitance for this kind of maneuver - particularly doing so without simply calculating 5% of the 'roll, rounded down to the nearest max. buy-in.

At any rate, thank you for any feedback!

If there is not a choice between 1/2 and 1/3 in any given location, I'd expect them to play pretty much exactly the same, your 12 hours of experience notwithstanding. Even where there is an option, I wouldn't expect them to play a lot different. Maybe 1/3 would attract a slightly different type of rec.

Comment about learning to play well being antagonistic to learning to beat 1/2 is well taken though.

1. This is probably true but not as much as you think. Even 1/2 tables vary in how they play and learning to adjust on the fly to table conditions and how they change over time is always useful. You won't get to practice bluffing but you will get just as many chances to read how strong villain is.
2. Really isn't true in general. 1/2 tables can sometimes trick you because super loose villains can hit two pair on any flop but higher stakes villains will bluff at you more and value bet more aggressively. This will create just as much variance, just in slightly different situations.
3. That could be true if the 1/3 games are profitable enough. Particularly if the 1/3 games have deeper stacks they could be quite a bit more profitable.

My inclination would be to try the 1/3 games and see if you can be consistently more profitable then the 1/2 game.

Usually, I wouldn't expect much of a difference either, but the 1/2 game bears little resemblance to even the level of play at the smallest stakes on Ignition. I realize "trust me bro/bro-ette, I seent it!" is not the most reasonable discussion point, but it does appear that 1/3 draws in a sufficiently different player pool to at least be able to derive some added benefit - especially if I am limited to a shorter session and can't sit around waiting for nutted hands.

Thanks for the input!

Thanks for the feedback!

Certainly learning to adjust to not only varying table composition but also changes in individual players is critical, and it's not to say that 1/3 has this and 1/2 simply doesn't. It does strongly appear, though, that 1/3 is at a minimum going to feature more diversity in player styles and skill levels, while the 1/2 players who aren't wildly incompetent (and generally calling stations, hence the exclusive nut-peddling) badly stick out within an orbit or two.

As for the standard deviation, true, the addition of bluffing jacks up the variance, and I would have to implement more than value bet-folding into my post-flop repertoire. But there would be fewer situations in which I have to simply check-fold a 5-way flop, and certainly fewer situations in which pocket KK or QQ is completely dead on an A-high board. Being able to play non-nutted hands would allow for more skill development, and reduce the session (albeit not hand) standard deviation by lessening the need to flop and maintain the nuts in pots that are almost always multiway. Definitely a debatable point, just wanted to explain why I originally said that.

The third one is a no-doubter. Most 1/2 players aren't buying in full, and with a 10% up to $6 maximum effective rake, 1/2 is close to unbeatable. The 1/3 games tend to have no more than 1 or 2 stacks under 50BB, and most exceed 150, sometimes by a large margin. I would say the most recent sessions of each were typical: at 1/2, 3 players were over $200 deep, 3 were 50-100, and 3 were under 100. At the 1/3 I switched to, 2 were under $200, 1 was between $200 and $300, and the remaining 6 were over 100BB deep, with 2 players near or over 200BB.

Given that the standard raise is about the same at both stakes - $12 +$2-3 per limper, unless you want 7 calls on your 3-4x open - and that both have the same rake, 1/3 would have to be substantially harder to not be more profitable - albeit with each buyin constituting a 50% larger slice of the bankroll. Any thoughts on those factors? Definitely leaning toward it, but we're talking a quite low number of buyins (10 or 11) and I don't want to be reckless. Hell, the hours spent watching the 5/10 game here while waiting for a seat has shown that most of those guys aren't particularly good, but that doesn't mean a 2.5 or 3 BI 'roll should sit!

The real question here is what the min/max and average buy ins at this game are. The only place I play that runs both 1/2 and 1/3 is Sugarhouse in Philly. The 1/2 game is $300 max but a lot of people are buying in for small stacks. The 1/3 game is $500 max and often people do buy in deep. I think the 1/3 game is much more profitable, even though the average level of play is a bit better. In fact, I think the 1/3 game may be more profitable than the 2/5, which has a $1000 max but is generally the highest game they run and seems a bit reg/nit infested.

I will say though that this whole post feels a bit like you're saying that the 1/2 players are so bad that you can't beat them. This is a common sentiment but IMO completely wrong. When people say that, what they're really saying is that they have a style they like to play, and they're unable to adjust to other players and their styles. This does not make you a good player! You need to be able to adjust to table conditions. If you have no fold equity or people are just playing bingo, be sure you're always getting it in with the best of it, or calling with odds (including implied odds) for a draw that can make the best hand. If people don't fold to bluffs, then don't bluff. If you can't beat the 1/2, you're going to struggle at the best 1/3 tables, which will have the worst players.

I think you've "talked" it out yourself in this thread, and you should obviously go for it.

Provided you understand the potential variance involved, I wouldn't worry as much about bankroll here. If you really start to run bad, take a break or drop back down to 1/2 for a while. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going back down in stakes when the cards aren't going your way.

Having said that, I doubt you'll find that large of a difference between the type of play that wins at 1/2 or 1/3. In my experience, it's a bigger leap from 1/3 to 2/5 in terms of bluffing, 3betting, and sophistication of play. Doug Polk is a great poker player and his videos are very well made, but just about nothing he says applies to 1/3. Doug is obsessed with balancing his range and blockers, concepts which aren't as applicable at 1/3.

Be wary not to fall into the trap of fancy play syndrome, in particular with bluffs, as your usual 1/3 opponent isn't thinking on the next level.

1/2 has an average buyin of probably 100-120 with a $200 maximum, and topping off is very rare, as players will let themselves get down to <$40, eventually bust, and then rebuy another 100. The 1/3 has a couple of 200s, but almost all buy in for the $300 max., with quite a bit of topping off. Both tables have a rake of 10% up to $6 with a $2 minimum on any hand that sees the flop. If one stack is substantially larger, you don't get to buy in for 70% of their stack or anything like that - the max. is the max., though if you really wanted to put an extra green chip or two, it's not as if they count each chip. Then again, with the 1/2 rarely having more than one player over 100BB, there's just no point in such dealer-accepted floor-disapproved sneakery.

Definitely not having trouble beating 1/2 my friend! Just considering the change because 1/2 is stunting my growth as a player and I think the conditions of these 1/3 games is such that it is likely to be at least as profitable. I wanted to see if those reasons were crazy talk, especially on a 'roll that is already snug for 1/2 (albeit going to be very well funded for the next month or two from the real job).

The issue is that you need to stop playing underrolled. Once you build up your roll you will be able to pay your loans off more easily. Not having a roll has stunted your ability to make money.

You mentioned the 1/2 was close to unbeatable which is clearly not the case. You are beating it for 12bbs/hr. You may be running above expectations but even with short stack sizes that game is super beatable because the play is so terrible. I personally wouldn't play it because I can't stand the super limp fest (it doesn't even feel like poker to me). The grinders at that level are mostly supernits that refused to move up when Winstar started offering 1/3.

1/3 is actually enjoyable. I'm sure some tables are more limpy than others but I expect more people to come in for a raise like you will see in 2/5. There are more grinders here but are probably mostly the types that don't know wtf they are doing and are just trying to make it in poker. A lot of mediocre 2/5 regulars moved down to 1/3 after they started offering that game. These are guys I would guess were mostly breakeven types at 2/5 or small losers.

2/5 is super soft too, especially if you are playing on the weekends. I played in a game last night with 2 mediocre grinder-types and 6 terrible players. The idea that you are going to make a lot of moves in a game like this just isn't realistic. These players were not folding. This is pretty typical on the weekends too. Sure there are some lineups where you play with nitty bad regulars where you can make moves but in a lot of these games your hands are a bit tied.

Cliffs: 1/2, 1/3, and 2/5 are all super easy. Build your roll.

(oh, and 5/T+ looks easier than it is. I'd advise you to stay away).

I'm just going to note that 12BB/HR is an exceptional winrate. Long term, I doubt you will be able to beat that. Therefore, you're going to need to move up if you want more earnings. Build your bankroll through savings.

Wow, just took a trip to Vegas to play some 1/2 after beating .25/.50 online lately. Was a completely different animal. Unfortunately it turned into to just waiting for the nuts and get paid. Bluffing and balancing ranges just became non existent for me. Was extremely frustrating when not getting premium hands and I asked myself, would I be more profitable playing slightly higher?

If you play higher you will play with more talented grinders/pros. Good luck. While a value oriented strategy is necessary to beat 1/2, you can still bluff in spots. If you aren't bluffing at all then you are playing far from optimal.

The times I played 1-2 people were limping AK and check calling A high boards. The 1-3 games are much better IMO, but my sample size is so small.

I've heard the 1-3 and 2-5 games have a few super crushers, any advice on who they are and how their game is so different from anyone else's?

The Playbook Of Your Future ...depends on what you do today. Fail as many times as you can imo.

I seriously doubt there are any crushers at the 1/3 level there. If they were that good they would be playing 2/5 nearly exclusively. As for becoming a crusher, there is no easy answer. The best players are highly experienced, disciplined, well rolled, and have worked away from the table to improve their game. Some play mostly TAG, and some play mostly LAG but most will play at least a little of both.

How they differ from everyone else is that most everyone else is absolutely terrible. There are even winning players in these games that have very poor fundamentals. If you want to get good you need to study away from the table and put in the hours at the table. Oh, and don't ever talk strategy at the table or criticize people for making bad plays. This seems like common sense but seems to be all too common at the lol low stakes.

lay off the study grind op...imo. live more, fail more.

Some questions for you Dream Crusher:
What was your biggest downswing (what stakes and how many BI)?
What bankroll rules did you use (how many buy-ins minimum did you need to have for a stake until you dropped down?)

I'd check out the following thread if I had questions about downswings/variance/bankrolls as I'm probably not the best to ask.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...nances-771192/

I lost $4k in a 2/5 session once and $12k in 8 hrs of 5/T. Both of those involved me playing super loose aggressive and suboptimally. I've had losing months here and there but nothing over 200 hrs (even though that doesn't seem too long, it sucks to go on downswings). I started full time at 2/5 with a $10k roll (the 1/3 games didn't exist at the time). Even though I've never been on a $10k downswing at 2/5 I'd recommend a bankroll of at least $20k to play 2/5 full time (although I would recommend against playing full time). I always continued to increase my bankroll with my winnings so I have never had to drop down in stakes.

What's going on in the 1/2 or 1/3 Vegas games is this. They are the easiest games in the world to beat and I'm gonna tell you why and how:
It's not my style to be passive (to wait for premium starting hands before getting in the pot). I'm quite active at the tables.

You know, the books tell us that we need to trow away certain hands. Well, I make a living by playing almost every hand but it seems I put more money in when I have the best hand. This is one way of making money. The other way is to wait for premium strong starting hands and try to make a small living that way.

You figure who's making more money. Me or the soccer dad that 3bets with QQ+/AK ............?

Ask me that question again in six months. Playing almost every hand is called being a whale.

I'm doing this for the last 30 years and still am in business. You see, you may not understand what's in play here that's why you think I'll be bankrupt in six months. No, I will still be around making money because I will put the most money in when I have the best hand and I will have the best hand at a higher frequency than the rest of LAGs and TAGs put together. I will not just make the best hand with AK but also with 10-8 or Q9 and not always the AA or KK make the best hand. That's a huge and monstrously difference between what is and what is not the best hand. All in poker is relative. AA is the best preflop but could lose big by the river while 10-8 is way below the average but could become the best post-flop.

Very relative
22 has a small edge vs. AK (50.2% vs 49.8%)
AK has a big edge vs. 109 (64% vs. 36%)
from direct implied logic we could say 22 has an edge vs. 109 BUT is not the case.
Actually 109 has a very healthy edge vs. 22 (54% vs. 46%)
All is relative to the potential of building a big hand.

Autist has actually been in the biz for 50 years, but he's only been trolling this subforum for the past 3 months.

My model of playing for poker flies in the face your traditional TAG or LAG we all learned from books. But I urges against playing my way unless you are very experienced and a near perfect post-flop player. I know where I am at all times. There are three basic theories against my way of playing. The first is that somehow I do angles or some cheating. The second is that I am incredibly lucky. The third is that I troll opponents during the hand. But the truth is I discovered an alternative theoretical model for NL that flies in the face of traditional TAG /LAG style of playing. My offbeat and unique strategy is a result of some serious analytical efforts. It wasn't stumbled upon, it was in fact consciously constructed.

PM for coaching rates.