I wouldn't be so sure. In American games, rake is usually capped at 5+1 or even 4+1, but it's 10% -- you hit the cap every hand (it maxes out at 20-25bb at 1/2). With the cap hitting at 100bb and the equivalent of the standard US cap hitting at 50bb, the rake is actually lower in UK games for smaller pots (such as: you raise to £15, get 1 call, cbet and take it down, that's just 3 quid of rake).

If it was 10% up to £10, then I'd tell you it makes a bit of a difference (not a huge difference, but enough to have an impact), but at 5% it should be about the same. You pay a bit more in big pots, a bit less in small pots.

I think 5%-£10 should be as beatable as any 1/2. Especially if the lineup is as bad as the standard 1/2 game.

This is a good point.

If you can build a bigger roll, $2/5 should be the way to go. IME the difference in skill between the two limits is negligible. A bit higher variance in $2/5 but that's where you make more money.

IOW $2/5 games aren't 40-60% tougher than $1/2 games.

Really doubt anybodys true hourly rate at 2/5 is 100 $/hr. I'm not saying somebody can't actually have that winrate for an extended period of time, it's almost guaranteed over a large enough player pool and over a specific sample size.

Nobody said $100/hr is attainable.

You literally just wrote that

I really didn't though.

Gthisis,like,onthepreviouspageG

Thanks for properly quoting my post rather than purporting that I said something else.

Lol I'm sorry you said "close", we rounding up by like 25$?

If money exist in a room where "close" to $100/hr is possible, there would more than likely be bigger games.

If there are bigger games that run regularly, almost certain that any players that are killing at $100/hr would move up.

People way underestimate the importance of the other end of winrate math.... what loss rates are sustainable in a player pool.

Exactly, hence a pool that can sustain such high winrate must be regularly spreading even bigger games.

i am

i call bs

by extended we're talking 2k+ hrs minimum right?

even $75/hr FT for a year+ has to require quite a unique set of circumstances... at least in the U.S.

assuming results are all tracked in brick & mortar and not merged w/ some home games mixed in

Not if their winrate in the higher games is similar or worse.

Logically that's hard to believe, but whatever.

It's not that hard to believe. If there are two 5/10s with 4 to 8 grinders each and 10+ 2/5s with 1 to 2 grinders each and a ton of rec fish.

I have a buddy that's 10x the player I am. Before Black Friday he mass multitabled online for a living without a HUD grinding as high as 5/10 online. He normally chooses to play 2/5 rather than 5/10. I've never seen him make a mistake before (I make multiple mistakes every session) and he's the only player I know to have 40+ winning sessions in a row.

Another issue could be bankroll. I know players that make six figures a year playing poker that can't maintain a sizable bankroll due to spending habits.

The other possibilities are that they are content at 2/5 or just haven't solved 5/10 yet.

So why would those 5/10 grinder play 5/10 then? Why not also play 2/5?

Whatever.

Majority of the nights at MDL 2/5 is the best game in the house and I think I can make more at it than a reg infested 5/T main game if I table select the best 2/5 game in the house.

At times I do think the decision to play 5/10 is nonsensical. I play 5/10 because I tend to play worse in soft lineups and am more likely to spew at lower stakes. My winrate at 2/5 over the last 6 months is most certainly negative.

Adapting to 2/5 after playing 5/T takes a lot of discipline. I finally just got into my comfort zone at 2/5.

I don't play 2/5 but am wondering something : the only game that runs near me is a 1-2, so everyone plays 1-2. There is a 1-3-6 game that runs occasionaly but I'd rather stay at 1-2 because the game is much better (the game is getting juicer at 1-3-6, so maybe I'll grow my roll and take shots soon).

Because of this there is quite a bit of aggro "winners" at 1-2. The game overall is very sticky so abc is optimal 90% of the time but it seems I'm the only one who realises this... But everytime I see a fellow aggro player, I become a total calling station.

Shouldn't people be even more sticky the higher you get in limits, because it's really hard to make a hand in this game? So what is "spew" at 2/5 would be "insanespew" at 5/T, no?

The first bolded I failed to mention but that's part of my argument. The second is worded a lot better than I worded it.

And the dynamics changing leads into the following...

That all those bolded are just guesses. It takes 1 hand for 100BB to be added to the table. An old guy raise/called pre with T9 and got ai on a 987 board yesterday. I would have said that's a preflop fold for him every time. I guess he got bored and played it to the death. You're going to assume he's loose and raise/calling all SCs pre? All it takes is one guy playing 60/50 to create big stacks, you're going to assume all 9 guys are playing those stats? And most often the players sitting on the biggest stacks are the tight guys taking advantage of the loose ones. And in toursit cities guys leave all the time before they want to because of concerts/dinners/wives, you can't think they're playing a 12 hour session.

So I'd prefer 2 nits on a table, both on my left, giving me the button 33% of hands, and the other types of players and their stack sizes aren't really important.

At 2-5 maybe, I don't know. At 1-3 most guys who would be vulnerable to this are the nits who start with $150 who are on my left and I don't even play hands against. The exploitable guys are the guys to value and way too often I see someone try to raise draws or raise as a pure bluff or get allin with TPNK and these are the fkcn worst way to play back at these spots. The best ways are to wait for fat value hands.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. For instance experienced players are going to call raises pre with a lot tighter range vs a strong player than an inexperienced player will. Also, they can read the story you are telling better than an inexperienced player.

Regardless of that, it's always easier to spew when you are playing smaller stakes (if you are apt to play LAG/maniac)

You have it backwards.

Strong players open wide, and experienced player (presumably strong as well) would also call wide, position not being a factor.