I went through the beginner's phase of freerolls & absolute bottom level MTTs & cash games.

If you don't yet have the ability to tell which opponents are total idiots then you run a big risk of copying their play when they luck-out and get successful ..it happened to me.

One memorable $0.22 buy-in MTT had unlimited rebuys. One player re-bought 15+ times and shoved all-in after every rebuy!

The same warning for freerolls.

My favorite game is the one-table SNG at buy-ins >= $2 (I've actually won 1st-place at $11 & $22 SNGs). But even the low-buy SNG players are much more rational, without so many stupid plays (BUT you must know ICM very well because of the effects of the payout-structure).

Why is it better to play against better players? I'd argue that any player should aim to play against the worst players at their buy in/stakes. I doubt many beginners will feel they should imitate their opponents play in order to improve. In addition the 'slightly better' players at the micros will be making tons of mistakes.

Completely disagree with OP. You learn to win at poker by learning how to profit from your opponents' mistakes.

When all of your opponents are more skilled, you make more mistakes than they do, thus you lose. If you learn from your mistakes, that helps, but poker is often counter-intuitive.

[QUOTE][One memorable $0.22 buy-in MTT had unlimited rebuys. One player re-bought 15+ times and shoved all-in after every rebuy!QUOTE]

While 15 times is extreme, playing like a total maniac in R&A tournaments is often a successful tactic if the top prize is large enough AND you have a skill edge over the field.

Not saying this is what the player cited was doing, but playing like a rebuy maniac at a table where the other 8 are treating the tournament like a freeze out is often quite profitable.

playing against worse players doesn't require as much higher level thinking about hands as they occur. you'll make more money in the short term, but you'll possibly fall into patterns that can beat the worst of the worst players but are exploitable to better players.

if you see a good player making huge calls and bluffs that you didn't think you could it may cause you to analyze the situation differntly, learning from the experience. also, when they put you to a tough decision it will force you to analyze the situation more again creating a greater learning environment than a 'it always works when i do this in this spot' mentality

it a question of, would you rather learn slower while making money/losing less or learn faster while losing a bit more? long term goals vs short term goals

Depends on the size of your bankroll

This is the difference between training and competing. You train harder than you will play, and you compete where you will have the best chances to win. You absolutely should play against different levels of player, and should note, study, and analyze the differences. But you should play most of the time where you have an advantage

When your starting out I don't think it matters who you are playing against. You play and play and you learn with experience. When I started out it wasn't about who I was playing against but rather on my game and if I was making the right decisions.

as a rule of thumb, do not try to "copy" anyone's play while at the lowest stakes, almost everyone is terrible there

This is deeply flawed. You learn to make correct decisions by studying the game not playing it.

OP, poker isn't a sport where this sort of thing applies

I think youre misunderstanding because i agree with you. Obv you should be studying as well. If you're not learning while you're playing though you're wasting a lot of time imo, assuming thats your goal. I'm not saying copy terrible plays. I'm saying you learn from your mistakes. I dont learn anything from the guy who spaz shoves when i have the nuts. I learn from the guy who puts me in tough situations by targeting the holes in my game. You adapt and learn from it and do better next time

This is all over the map. As with 'school' some people are better 'test takers' than working homework.

You need to play at tables where you are comfortable with both your game and BR considerations. There's nothing wrong with moving up and 'taking a shot' if your BR can handle it.

The big issue is that you can't just move up and expect to play exactly the way you were playing at the lower level. That is where your mental game comes into play. You have to do it 'knowing' that the skill level should be higher and you need to figure some things out. I certainly don't play 5/10 the same as I play 1/2. Sure, you find a few 1/2 'minds' at 5/10 but it's pretty much certain that the more $$ on the table the more skill that will be there also. GL

exactly my thought, i believe you have to play with worse players if possible, and avoid at all cost better players.

Yep

This is an expansion of what you said originally. I understand what you mean in all your posts in this thread. You can improve your ability to make accurate assumptions [hand reading] solely by playing so I suppose that could be deemed learning from your mistakes. Nobody improves by being exploited by another player.

I think its important to play with players, better than you, you will learn faster and get understanding of the game

And lose a bunch of money in the process. As I stated earlier, this isn't like you're having a kick about in the park where all you'll lose while learning from better players is time - if you don't have the understanding to beat weaker players, you won't learn anything from better ones.

You need to play at a table where the average skill level is lower than your own, at all times. You don't learn poker to go and bumhunt Phil Ivey unless you enjoy going broke. You learn poker to compete for the fish money and fish don't use advanced strategy.

Learn how to beat the fish first because those are the ones that you want to play against. When you're learning the regs will be above your level anyways, why would you look for tables where everyone is better than you when that only costs you money? If you're the best player at your stakes then move up to where the regs are better but you still beat the fish.

how do you know if someone is better than you?

^^ +1

Better? A player should be able to show you their skill level within 3-4 orbits for sure, but not always with deck variance. As to being 'better' .. hopefully we can be subjective without bringing in the win-lose records. But it's hard not to ..

1) What are they showing down based on hand flow? Were they correct?
2) Playing well in position ... not letting EP raiser just c-bet their way to pots?
3) How they pick up on various situations that can be exploited - stealing pots.

Skill/experience/reg/rec/pro/gambler/history between players .. tons of factors that can swing 'better or worse'

I have a great deal of respect for players who can weave their way through the hand and 'comfortably' call a guy down with 3rd pair and be 'close enough' to make it a correct call. Not just 'I had a pair and I'm never folding.'

If a player is good enough to spot it when someone makes a mistake and you don't figure it out until 2 hands later, then you might want to consider them 'better' than you?

If you feel pressured by this player rather than being able to apply pressure ... that might be a time to pay closer attention when they are in the hand. GL

If you are an average to decent player , it does not take too long to discover who the weaker seats are. To find out who is significantly better than you should take longer , in my personal experience often too damn long BR wise.

The old saying still applies: After a 1/2 hour if you haven't figured out who the fish are at your table, you're the fish.