I have been playing poker roughly 6 years and have been a barely break-even player for 5 of them. Last year I began to take poker more seriously and have had very large profits at 1-2. I have studied tons of poker literature, all the way from the classics like SuperSystem, all of Caros books, to Gordon's books, Hellmuth's books, Gus Hansen's one book, Negraneau's stuff, even Navarro's for psychology, and Tri Ngyun's books. I also watch WPT and World Series clips over and over again to try to get better at tells.

According to the dictionary definition, I have been crushing 1-2. I have maintained a mean profit in my 1-2 sessions of over $500 per 12 hr session for over a year now, and I play 3 long 12 hr sessions a week, so I generally leave with $1500 in the positive for the week. That said, I still think I have some glaring weaknesses and I'm not sure I've completely "beaten" 1-2, if you know what I mean. My results are good, but I don't want to succumb to results oriented thinking, and still don't feel like I have 100% just dominated the game. I still experience a lot of variance, I often pull over 1K a session, but I also have losing sessions approximately one time in five as well. I think I'm showing such good profit margins largely because of the low caliber of player I'm playing against. Everyone I know says I should move to 2/5 because the competition isn't much better and your opportunity for profit is basically 2x higher. Tbh I'm nervous about moving up. My bankroll can sustain it and I have a 125K per year job, so even if I lose 1K every weekend for a while, I won't go broke. At the same time, I'm just nervous about moving up when 1-2 has been such a cash cow. Also, 1-2 has simply been a lot of fun for me. Idk if I will have the same level of fun in a more competitive atmosphere. I know 2-5 is still regarded as low stakes, yet for some reason I'm nervous to move up, even though everyone (friends, my gf, other players) thinks I should. In fact, most regulars already think i play 2-5. Last Saturday I had a sick heater where I made $2K in one 12 hr session at 1-2 and everyone was dumbfounded when I told them I won it at 1-2 and not 2-5. Should I move up? Thoughts?

Have you taken any shots yet? If so, were you comfortable playing your normal game? There shouldn't be much of an increase in player pool skill level, ESP. if your casino spreads 5/5+.

Play like 12/8 for a session to book a solid win and feel out the stakes, then, if you're beating 1/2 (really, crushing) for 10+BB/hr, you're way safe to move up....gogogogo.

No, I haven't taken any shots at 2/5. Ironically, I have actually played in high buy-in tournaments (at least the highest buy-in in my area) and won. Idk why I'm nervous to move to 2/5. It's just because I hate losing, I hate losing more than I like winning, and I'm sure any poker player can relate. So I've been sticking to a game I KNOW I'm going to win most of the time. It's not about the $$$$, I just don't want to lose.

Crushers keep track of their winrate/hr. You should know your winrate and the number of hours you have played, and also know your standard deviation so you can figure out your risk of ruin. Saying that you average $500 per 12 hour session just makes me think you haven't been keeping accurate records.

But to be honest, if you have a good paying job then moving up shouldn't be an issue either way. You aren't relying on poker as a source of income, so don't be scared of losing money.

I do keep track of it, or at least my gf does. She keeps track of my winrate on an app on her phone. She also records my hands and what the result was. In case, it wasn't clear she sits and watches me play, and keeps track of all that stuff. didn't know I had to be that specific though.

If you're beating 1-2 for 41$ an hour, you should have the bankroll for it after a year. Why not just give it a try? If you're uncomfortable with it then step back down until your roll gets higher. No big deal. You're not getting married here.

If u have a job I'd say play 2/5 I'd u have 5-10 buy ins in ur BR. If u play poker for a living u should have at least 30 buy ins.

It's a much bigger game, at least in PA, where it's almost hard to sit at a table that has been open for a few hours because you will generally see each player with an average of $2k in front of them, especially since at most casinos the buy in here is max $500. It's a good game to get into when they open the table, but u will see more big stacks here than u will in 1/2

I made the transition at the end of last year to 2-5 from 1-2, 1-3.

I started out by buying in short ($300-$400), and playing tight ABC poker. I started out playing 2-5 just once in a while, but then I went on a heater and now I'll always play 2-5 if it's available.

I would say the skill level is definitely better. There are a lot fewer complete fish (insofar as they don't know strategy), but still a lot of bad players who understand basic strategy, but make a ton of mistakes (especially in bet sizing and overvaluing hands like KQ/AT).

I'd say start playing 2-5 one out of every three sessions to get a feel for it and increase that number once you get more comfortable.

I answered this question a long time ago.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...g-down-729719/

OP it depends on your venue, how good the games are?

Without that information we can't succesfully answer your question. A easy answer is yes, but I'm not to fond of that answer without the key knowledge first.

I live in Washington D.C. and play in West Virginia, Delaware, or Pennsylvania, depending on my mood. The opponents are either of these locations are definitely not good. I'm not going to be insulting, but let's just say that at any given 1-2 table, at least 1-2 people are learning poker. I don't just mean they're learning strategy, they are actually learning the game of poker. Uber fish. There are usually 1-2 decent players at my 1-2 tables. These guys usually play 2-5, but sometimes there's not even a 2-5 table so they will move down to 1-2. Based on my experience playing with them at 1-2, they're decent but I haven't played against a single player who I honestly thought was better than me. So I can't say the 2-5 tables would be "tough", just tougher.

One more thing, in terms of bankroll. I keep my poker bankroll and life bankroll completely separate. I started my poker bankroll with $500 a year ago. After one year of grinding 1-2, my poker bankroll is significant. I don't know if I need to be specific, but I have 50 max buyins or more for $2-5.

why does your girlfriend watch every single one of your sessinos. you have a fulltime job and make 125k a year and in your free time she watches you play poker? wow...does she have sisters?

You should definitely at the very least be trying a 2/5 game from time to time then. You have plenty to go with even if you go on a terrible downswing to start.

If that's the case then go for it. What is even stopping you? You have a very small risk of ruin, so just step up. If it doesn't work out then you can just move down.

I think it's called love and support....

I guess it's fear of losing. Not fear of losing money, but fear of LOSING, if you get my drift. But I'm starting to sense than 2/5 players aren't something to be intimidated by either.

OP I guess you dont know what a good 2/5 game consist of. A good 2/5 game is one that runs 24hrs. At peak hours their is more then 4+ tables. Double points for having 2 or more venues with 4+ tables. Tripple points if you can find a 2/5 game at a small casino where no grinders would ever go and the comp is super soft. Along with 2+ venues of 4+ 2/5 tables.

I've always subscribed to the idea that if you have to ask on the internet if you're ready to move up you aren't ready to move up.

IMO like 90% of sucessfully moving up to 2/5 if you're a good 1/2 player is based on confidence. You need to be confident that you play poker well. This is especially important when you have a losing session and its 2.5x what you're used to.

The player pool really isn't much stronger. The only difference is at 2/5 you start to see some regs that are actually fairly difficult to play against. But I emphasize SOME. There aren't that many of those types of players. Most of the 2/5 "regs" play fairly similar nitty games to most of the 1/2 regs.

This is offset by the fact that you tend to imo get more of the really terrible fish at 2/5. This makes sense if you think about it because most of the really terrible fish are people that have money independently of poker and they would rather play 2/5 than "slum" at 1/2.

i didnt read any of the thread but yes u should

imo live 2-5 is much easier to beat than live 1-2

live 1-2 players are the scared money that dont make moves and dont pay off big bets, sure u can slowly grind them down but it just doesnt add up

2-5 players are there to gamble, will make moves, and will try to catch bluffs on big bets

Assuming, I do move, are there any considerations I should be aware of in terms of different play styles/strategy at $2-5? I have been very successful at $1-2 just by being a solid TAG, making heavy value bets, and the occassional bluff. I saw that some posters believe that $2-5 has even more loose gamblers with money. Am I to presume then that a solid TAG strategy is optimal here too?

It's not optimal generally. But it is probably the best style to play when you're just moving up. Generally, when I move up I play a bit tighter than usual for a few sessions while I get used to the differences in $$ and the differences in players. Then I gradually expand by ranges as I get more and more comfortable with the game.

The style you describe is a good way to start out. Like I said there is the occasional 2/5 player that is actually fairly good and difficult to play against. I think one really important thing to do (which we should have been doing at 1/2 already anyway) is to pay attention to the "regs" and figure out which ones are the same exploitable ones we played with at 1/2 and which ones are the good ones.

Wait...your girlfriend sits there and watches you play poker 12 hours at a time?
Right.

Level.

My reality is not really up for discussion and also has little bearing on the point at hand so I'm not respond in the affirmative or negative. It's not really your business.

I don't think it is reality.