I want to start taking a shot at 2/5 now that I've built up a sufficient bankroll (to take occasional shots at 2/5). The buy in for 2/5 at my local casino is between 200 and 1000.

Are there any notable adjustments that should be made between these stakes, or are they similar?

For example, two things that I've noticed from occasionally playing 2/5 is that:
1) Villains like to trap more (i.e. flatting KK OOP to 3!)
2) Villains like to float cbet more often.

While I have limited experience playing 2/5, I have logged maybe 50-75 hours. Are these tendencies that I'm seeing due to a small sample size, or should I be making concerted adjustments?

I think it would be #2 much more than #1. People usually try to trap at the lower stakes. If you room has a 1/2, then you're probably already playing with the top players in the 1/2 pool, so 2/5 isn't too much different as long as you just buy in for 500 or 600. I don't suggest buying in for 200 big blinds right off the bat.

Players are usually more sticky and some will float almost 100% of your cbets but will fold to turn aggression, you just need to know who these players are.

There are a lot of threads on this in the forums.

I would say in general, you should not make these types of assumptions and making generalizations about the entire $2/5 population as if they are drastically different than the $1/3 (while there are big differences in certain aspects).

Example, if you just assume $2/5 players in general are gonna be floating you frequently, then you are going to level yourself into making bad decisions.

In general, players will be more aggro, but that does not mean they are always going to be so, or even be overly aggro.

The biggest disadvantage I found myself having when transitioning between the 2 is:

1) bankroll
2) rebuilding my mental database of the player pool. which players float too often? which players trap?

I think you should avoid leveling yourself too much - like if you get 3! a bit more than usual, avoid falling into a fallacy of "oh they are playing at me." Be patient, gather a sample size before making a decision. Live poker sample sizes are small as is, don't make them even smaller.

IMO if you are a proven winner at $1/3, then I would suggest more or less playing your usual game and start making adjustments once you are able to make more conclusions of a) your room's $2/5 game in general and b) adjustments vs certain regs/players.

2-5 plays closer to "proper poker" than 1-3.
It's not just that players are better at 2-5, they are playing better than they do when they are at 1-3.
They play closer to their "A game" whatever that is when at 2-5. So IMO it's a harder game to beat long term.

Some people just have a higher threshold for gambling so they play 2-5 b/c in their mind 1-3 is too small a game regardless whether they have adaquit skill or not for the high stakes game

Most important, be more of a level 3 than a level 2 player. Especially when playing deep (200BBs).
- Level 2 player = I know what I have, and I have a good idea of what they have. Therefore, I will value-bet them to death when I'm ahead and bluff them always when I missed my draw and I think they only have a weak 1 pair.
- Level 3 player = I know what I have, and I have a good idea of what they have, and I think I know what they think I have. Therefore, when value-betting, I might size up my bets if my range looks weak, size down my bets when my range looks strong, and won't try to bluff as much when it looks like I was drawing and all the draws missed. They're probably not bluffing when I look like I have an overpair, but they might start bluffing if it looks like I'm weak and a card scared me... That is, constantly evaluate your own perceived range and be very aware of your image. If you have a "winning" image, you'll get away with a lot more than if you have a "losing" image - people like to play with, play back at, and call down other players who keep losing.

Generally, the difference in the player pool is that villains will often be a bit more competent in hand-reading, they will size their bets better, they will be a bit more aggressive, they won't limp call hands like Q4o quite as often, etc. Not all. Some players at 2/5 are really terrible. Some are really gambly.

Also, just start off playing tight. You should have position in most of your bigger pots, and you should try to have a strong range when playing OOP. Only loosen up with certain hands in certain positions when you feel confident you can do it profitably.

My advice: ignore all previous advice and play exactly how you did to build the roll in the first place. Then if things go south investigate why. You're much more likely to lose early due to being hyped up and overadjusting to perceived tendencies then by suddenly getting owned by other players with more money on the table.

The variance is higher and players show more aggression generally.

But they're awful. Dear god they're awful. 2/5 is a very soft game.

pretty much what i said...

This:

and this:

The best players at 2/5 will play much like the best players at 1/3. The difference will be the worst players at 2/5 will play better than the worst players at 1/3.

These threads give me mini tilt. Regardless of stakes, poker is poker. Some 2/5 tables will be very difficult and drastically different than 1/3 tables. That being said, some 2/5 table will play exactly like your average 1/3 table, or maybe even juicier.

What I'm trying to say is that you should try to adjust to the table and players, not the specific stakes you're playing. Sit down, get a feel for the table, and make the best possible decisions. Psyching yourself up and approaching a higher stake in a different mentality is a surefire way to make bad decisions.

One piece of advice I can give you is to not play a higher stake just because it's the highest stake offered in the room at the time. There's tonnes of situations where a 2/5 game is more profitable than a 5/10, or a 1/3 game is more profitable than a 2/5 game. Your opponents make the game, not the stakes.

There's no difference between the two. Everyone still sucks.

Some decent advice here, my favorite piece is actually "Play exactly how you played at the lower stakes, then if the wheels fall off or if you're misfiring just pay attention and try to figure out where you went wrong." It could be a bit of a mind**** walking into a bigger game thinking that you're entering this drastically different world and need to change EVERYTHING, or at least many things about the way you play. This would lead to overthinking/second guessing everything, and the whole thing could turn into a self fulfilling prophecy.

I've been thinking of taking some shots at $2/$5 myself and the biggest thing I've been mentally prepping for is the psychology of having that much money in front of me. I've taken shots in the past and had $1,200 in front of me at one point, which was a lot for me. Couple black chips, stack of greens, tower of reds. Mmm. But I never felt that comfortable with that much cash in front of me. Also, betting amounts. PF raise to $20 --> 3 callers --> $80 pot --> what's a normal flop bet here for the game? At $1/$2 this type of thinking is automatic for me, but requires a little thinking/observation in a new, larger game.

Talking about $2/$5 is making me feel frisky, I may take a shot tomorrow now. If you see a timid guy in CT or RI at $2/$5 tomorrow, do me a favor and let him win a pot.

;-)

I used to be a 2/5 (winning) recreational reg until RL circumstances forced me to move back down. I had gotten married and spent much of my bankroll on the wedding/honeymoon at the same time my local card room changed 2/5 from 100BB max to 200BB.

In my experience, you can have really good and really bad players at both stakes. The most noticeable differences in play are:

Fewer players buy in short (less than 75BB).
Fewer limped/family pots.
More 3-betting preflop.
Players will play their big draws more aggressively.
The player pool is smaller, so there are more reg-vs-reg dynamics.

There are both good players and bad players at 2/5 just like at 1/2. The worst 2/5 are just plain bad, whereas the worst 1/2 fish are unpredictably bad.

The biggest adjustment I had to make was to care just as little about $1000 in front of me as I did about $600 in front of me. That took some time to achieve. Part of it was just getting more experience, but I actually also specifically made some large 0 EV bets (going all-in blind) in order to accelerate the process.

Just as an aside, going all in blind is a -EV bet. The people behind you can just compare their hand to a random hand to decide whether to call or not. If everyone folds, you win almost nothing. If someone calls, you're behind.

Yep, and I knew that. It actually worked out in a mildly interesting way: I thought everyone had folded, but there was actually one person with chips in front of them that I had missed. I looked up at the person I knew a) hadn't looked yet and b) loved to gamble it up big. I asked him if he wanted to shove blind and he said sure. So I put my 1900 in the middle. Previous caller then went into the tank while I internally discussed just how bad a mistake I had just made. For thoughts, they were pretty loud. Eventually he folds and we're off. I peek down at K9o, not bad for an aiblind hand. Runout is a blank and V has... K9o. Caller indicates he had AX and would have called for, like 500 but not 1900.

On the bright side, it worked. I noticed a definite emotional reaction to money after this. If I did this again, I'd be much more careful to ensure either we had an agreement with entire table or that it was a BvB situation.

Of course, standard disclaimers apply. This isn't a good idea. I did it only for a very specific purpose. No animals were harmed during the performance. Do not attempt. Etc.

the main rule when moving up stakes is to game select agressively - make it as easy as possible while you settle in

The suggestion of just playing your game and paying attention is best imo. You may want to play the tighter flavor of your game and I agree with 100bb bi to start.

My experience was that as long as I was in the 100 bb range early on a fairly TAG approach worked fine with most regs who likely knew I was moving up. By and large they still played too loose pre and mostly fit or fold post vs my cbets and barrels. It seemed until I had shown down some hanky panky they mostly gave me credit and generally (not exclusively) had what they repped when they showed aggression.

As I showed down more and played deeper things eventually got more complicated. But by then you get more comfortable with how that player pool is playing.

GL

Oh and +1 to game selecting. Play the bigger game when it looks best in the beginning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for all the great advice. I did take a shot at it this weekend, and unfortunately did not fair well.

I had QJo in a limped pot. 3 clubs on the board (1 queen) 4 ways on the flop, I bet and get called by one. Q on the turn, guy led out for like 60, I raised to 200, he jammed. I tanked for a bit then called it off (I knew I shouldn't have, I think I just psyched myself up and was looking at how much money I could've won), he turned over a boat. (I moved down in stakes after that and crushed it, which was kind of nice).

Anyways, a lot of people here have mentioned game selection (aside from playing your regular game, on the tighter side). If I don't have any real reads on any of the players due to me not playing with them, what should I be looking for when it comes to game selection?

Some of the things i look for when trying to find a good game:

1) One or several players are drinking alcohol.

2) Are the table talkative, or is it a bunch of headphones/hoodie nits? Talkative table where people are joking/smiling and talking to eachother are a sign of a good loose game where people gambling it up.

3) Does the pots go raise and folding around uncontested several times? Imo, what youre looking for is players playing alot of hands, and lots of pots going multiway is good sign.

4) Is there straddling going on?

I have mixed feelings about this, especially the alcohol part. That leads me to believe that you like games where people are getting in a ton of money with weak holdings and being extra gambly.

Sounds great, and it is sorta kinda great. But if you're just moving up, games like this are really a lot of variance to handle, and the extra EV isn't necessarily as big as you might think it is. I sometimes find myself up multiple 200BB buyins in these games, but I've also lost multiple 200BB buyins in these games.

To me, a good game is one where there's very little 3betting (except for me of course) - only when they have KK-AA, where people limp/call pre then call any pair or draw on the flop, but fold to the second barrel on the turn if they don't improve to at least top pair. Where they don't ship or raise with their draws. E.g., I want loose-passive fish, but not so loose that they never fold.... These are the types of games where I often have a smooth and steady $200 (40BB)/hour chip-stack climb for long sessions.

Youre being sarcastic right or trolling? I mean, its hard to grasp if youre serious with this lol.

I just mean that when flops go 5 ways or more with low SPRs, equities kinda even out. And while we can easily maintain an edge, it gets to be a very high variance edge. I'm saying that it's possible to have just as much of an edge or close to it in a much reduced variance way at other types of soft tables.

I am certainly not saying it's a bad thing to be at a table like this. But for a player just moving up, they shouldn't be looking for high variance spots.

The way I wrote that was wrong... "That leads me to believe that you like games..." was meant to be more along the lines of "That leads me to believe that you're suggesting to op to play in games like..."

Yeah, i mean- i just want to clarify want i ment. What i ment and found astonishing with your post is that describing a game where people plays all too many hands, and puts in loads of money with inferior ranges is suddenly a bad thing. Those games are freaking gold mines, so obviously i (or any) pokerplayer should be thrilled to sit in such games. High variance or not.

Like i had a crazy game at Harrahs going last summer during WSOP. It was 1/2 table, but stacks was insanely deep- floor talked to the dealer about they never have had that kind of money on the table for a 1/2 before. Average stack was like 1400$-1800$ with 3-4 players playing more than 2000$. The hours that went down during the evening to get these kind of stacks was amazing. People simply didnt have a fold button at all. Guys could open to 12$, one caller i pick up KK in late position, bombing it to freaking 80$preflop: only to get instacalled from both spots. Instacalled. Sure its high variance, but i mean i would kill to get a seat in a game like that- no other type of games can give you the winrates that are possible in these kind of games.

Some follow up comments: its my belief that too many players approach those kind of games the wrong way. Variance isnt the main problem, its how they approach the game. They bleed money in the wrong spots, and make the wrong adjustments/arent adjusting correctly.

If you approach it the right way, you can abuse such games to the point of it getting almost ridicilous. But, it demands that you are there with full concentration and observe how the games play with an attentionlevel of a whiteshark circling in on blood in the water. You need to pay attention if you want to be able to know what the correct adjustments is when you actually sit in a game like this.

Its so so much you can pick up on and exploit it like crazy. Not to forget players that makes huge mistakes like:

1) C-betting too much multiway into the field on autopilot

2) Losing their patience when the fish play garbage- wich causing them to try and bluff callingstations with zero fold button= lightening money on fire

3)Raising a too wide isolationrange preflop when you often get called by the world+ compounding this mistake with number 1.

4) Losing huge amount of value by betting on autopilot in all spots and using "standard" betsizes,when they play against stations that is willing to pay off huge in many spots: if you just give them the chance of doing so.