The only difference between a 1/2 player and a 100/200 player is how much money it takes to get them excited.

what limits do you think phil ivey would get excited about?

Whichever limit Andy Beal wants to play.

i disagree.

agree somewhat, but overall disagree.

especially when you are dealing with pro's, not your avg poker player who justp laying for the "thrill".

- Jordan

Not that it's exactly the same, but the difference is way smaller than you build it up to be in your head. I remember back when I'd play 1/2, in my mind I thought 2/4 was where all the "good players" were. Then I played 2/4, and I thought 5/10 must be up where all the experts were. When I played 5/10, I thought 15/30 players must be nothing but crazy good poker players who never made mistakes. When I played 15/30, I thought 30/60 was the cream of the crop where they'd eat me alive. Now I play 30/60 and I'm always finding lots of weak players that I can exploit and outplay continually.

And the few times I took shots at the 50/100 game on Party, it was almost softer than a 1/2 game. It seemed like every game there was at least one person that was just steaming like crazy who had obviously just moved their whole roll up from 5/10 or something and was raising every hand. Talking to people in the 30/60 game at Bellagio who play the 100/200 there sometimes, it sounds like you get just plenty of fish looking to gamble it up there too.

People talk about how it's a "whole different game" playing higher limits, but it's really not. It's the same game; it's just that the good player to decent player to fish ratio is a little bit higher. One thing I always think is funny is when people say that 3/6 online plays like 20/40 live or something. I mean the fact is that 3/6 live can play like 20/40 live depending on the game, and 3/6 online can play like 20/40 online. Basically, the "level" you play at is just how much the chips are worth, it's not necessarily indicative of skill at all. There were regulars in the 3/6 game I used to play at in Pullman that could easily be long-term winners in a 30/60 game without any adjustment at all.

I was just pointing out how easy it is to mythologize different stakes of poker. It's easy to get the idea that everyone is slowly moving up and the losers at the 30/60 game are the people that were winning at the 20/40 game yesterday, but that's just not the truth. The money doesn't cycle up from lower limits, it just comes from the people who get in the game because they like to gamble. If you think no one's willing to gamble enough to get in a 100/200 game without being good at poker, go look at the high-limit baccarat room at Caesar's some time. The $1,000 minimum tables are never empty.

Not playing 100/200 myself (yet) I cannot confirm the theme of your post, but I do remember a Paul Phillips blog post from a couple years ago where he said something like this. Paraphrasing: "The difference in skill between regular players and the top pros is less significant than you might think."

I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but it's on his blog somewhere I'm sure...

GB

PS - Nice avatar.

Skill level may not be all that higher but if you don't have the BR and are scared money it will show.

yeah you are right the only thing is people steam a lot easier and it is much easier to go on tilt at that level. You character can really shows itself at that level.

I honestly can't wait till I can destroy the 10/20, and the 30/60.

On that day I will never work again

So I guess the end result in this post is:

Who is going to stake me for the 100/200 game?

Wrong. It's the ratio of better:worser players at the table.

Do you win consistently at $1/2?

this is all a scheme to get weak players to take shots in your game isnt it?

----

ive heard this from other people before too, that someone who is good and beating the higher low limits could usually hold thier own in mid stakes game. i think the problem comes from the fact that they arent going to play the same way though. the insane amount of money they see going around is going to affect them in some way.

Yes. Sample from .5/1 to 5/10 provides proof of that, albeit it's somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 BB/100, without my data in front of me, and I do run at about 400 BB/100 at .02/.04.



So yeah, pokerstars ID is the same as here, I figure about $100,000 should be enough to endure the swings. I'll be waiting.

Oh yeah, the money totally affects you when you first move up. That's why it doesn't really work to skip a bunch of levels (sorry Zach). Like right now, I could probably sit in a 10/20 NL game and hold my own, but it would be a lot easier to go on tilt, and as soon as I got down more than a buy-in, I'd be completely off my game.

And yes, like I said the ratio of good players to bad players is a little higher at higher limits, so it's not like it's exactly the same. It's just that it's the same general idea that there will be some total fish that bring money into the game. The only difference is you might see two total fish in a 30/60 game vs. four in a 2/4 game or something.

since luck is such a factor in poker, players naturally are playing at "incorrect" relative levels

i also think that since there tends to be more good players you have to be more aware of who the good players are and stay away from marginal situations with them. youre playing to attack weak players, not have pissing contests with good ones. in games where there are mostly bad players playing in tough spots with people who are as good or better than you isnt really going to hurt you very much, at a table with 6 good players and two fish it can be very harmfull.

If you're talking about a live 2/4 game that number will be closer to 9 or 10. You'll rarely find an even passably not terrible player at a live 2/4 or 3/6 table.

I salivate at limit players trying to play NL; it's just easy money. If you think you can hold your own at 2000NL, you are being short-sighted. I don't mean to attack you, but I think people need better advice than that. They are too different games and skill sets.

It's not that he thinks he can beat 2000 NL because he's beating 20/40 LHE. It's because he knows he can beat say 600 NL, or whatever the case may be.

QFMFT

I've got about 50,000 hands logged playing NL cash games; I certainly know what I'm doing. I've actually probably played more NL than limit although my winrate's better for limit and that's what I've been focusing on lately.

Actually, I think that there's a little more skill difference between low-stakes NL player and high-stakes NL players than there is at comparable levels playing limit, That's why I used limit in my initial statement. It's easier to get affected by the money in a NL game though, even though that's a concept that applies in all games.

The same could be said about NL players sitting in a limit cash game.

But a good player at either wont bleed that much away.

Being observant goes a long way. Someone who's great at one should be able to pick up the other quick enough that they wont be donating.

The place I play we play 3/6 9 handed and usually there are atleast 7 fish Its a real money maker!

This is False.

when you can afford to play 100/200 instead of 1/2 you are playing better by that time because A-, you can afford to lose money and arent playing scared, B- you played your way to that level.

Note that If you are a 1/2 NL player who now plays a high level, You will think what you see is similar styles at both level but in reality, you've just gained experience to play the high limits which are now your comfortzone, which remind you of playing 1/2

I don't agree with this statement.

At lower limits you can play like a super-nit and still get paid because a lot of players will not notice. At the very high limits, you're not going to get paid off on your hands and people are also much more aggressive.

At NL the difference is even greater. Players are trickier and are capable and willing to make many more moves with air than lower stakes players are. As the stakes climb, so do the hand reading abilities of most of the players in the game, and that makes it harder to make moves and harder to get paid with big hands.

Not everyone playing 100/200 has worked their way there from 1/2. Some rich bored people that love to gamble aren't going to waste their time at the lower limits. It just doesn't give them the thrill they are looking for. While 100/200 may be a high limit for some, it's all reletive to how much money you have. Not everyone new to the 100/200 game just carried their bankroll over from 50/100, some have money from things other than poker. I agree that there is probably a couple brutally bad players with very limited experience. The trick is to make sure you know which players those are and exploit that.

the simple initial post implied no skill difference.
Certainly Royal is correct in pointing out:

1. there is a big skill difference, in aggregate
2. as you move up, your perception of who is skilled will adjust (like 40yrs old is old when you're 12, kinda adjustment)

no one is saying there is no overlap between any levels, where a strong 1/2 player is better than a weekend gambling 100/200 fella, sometimes

yes, i understand this, although someone with money to spend @ 100/200 will be able to play a form of poker that might appear to be solid, as long as they dont look to LAG.

if they have simple knowledge and a few games under their belt, they can play these high levels without worry about money cuz to them 100/200 is the same as you playing 1/2

Exactly

Do these players you speak of live under the sea?

yes, and they are good friends with Ariel.

if I won a couple mil on the lotto do you really think I am going to waste my time with $1/$2

hell no, I am going to jump into a bigger game because the money won't matter.

Iggy not to be an *** but I think you overrate your game.


And overall the reason each limit seems easy as you go up is because you improve along the way in order to beat the next level.

How does he overrate his game. He consistently beats the mid-high limit holdem games..

Having played more hands of 10/20 and up on stars then anyone on this forum and having played with iggy/ talked to players who have played with him i'd have a better idea then most.

I dont doubt that he can beat the game and that he does beat the game i'm just saying that its pretty impossible to label the 30/60 game on stars as easy and or anything at all similar to a 1/2 game.

the real question is...if youre right and there is a big difference...why woulndt you encourage the spreading of the misconception that there isnt....

or is there really not a difference and you dont want us to all take shots at your soft 30/60 games?

I dont play that high, so i have no vested interest in saying that i think the typical FCP poster could only make a stars 30/60 softer.

They're not easy games.

Im sure that i've played in 3/6 games on absolute that are tougher than some 30/60 games on stars, but those instances are the exception and i leave those tables asap.

It's a bad comparison. There is a noticable gap between the level of play at a 30/60 and even a 10/20. If someone doesnt see a very noticable difference between 1/2 and 30/60, that's reason to question their ability. I think if iggy sat down at both he'd soon see the difference.



I hope to challenge that title some time soon.

not even worth it for free.

I hate the newsletter.

Allright points understood, but he's not really over-rating his game he's just underrating the game he plays or overrating 1-2. Not sure which.

I better clear up some misunderstandings here. I was never trying to say that the skill level at the two games is exactly the same. In general, there are usually better players, the higher up you go.

My point was that the deciding factor in what limit most people play is not skill. It is the money in play. The idea that you get at low-limits is that each limit up, people are significantly better, when really, there's huge overlap, and the difference is a slight gradation. For instance, you can't say a 5/10 game plays like X and a 15/30 game plays like Y, because they vary widly. On Party, it was not uncommon to see some tilted schmuck at the 50/100 game who would be getting hammered at a 1/2 game in his current state.

Post-ban on Stars, I've noticed a lot more regulars in the mid-limit games, but I still maintain that the difference is a lot smaller than you'd think. It seems like half the people at the tables have AF aggression ratings under 1 and PFR under 10 (something like 40/8/0.7, not nitty TAGs). To be fair, I haven't played low-limits in several months, but it seems like these passive types are the same fish you'd be taking advantage of at 2/4.

Again, I wasn't saying the games don't change at all. They get more aggressive as you go on, the fish percentage goes down, and the good player percentage goes up. I was just saying that the same type of players exist in all the games, and money not skill is the deciding factor for what level people choose to gamble at.

Of course there's overlap.

Just maybe not enough to justify a BIGGEST SECRET IN POKER REVEALED thread.

I thought it would be funny to have a serious post under a heading that looked like spam. Sorry if that's frowned upon in Strat. And I do think it's true that most low-limit players greatly, greatly, overestimate the skill difference between different levels.

I dont think it came across as satire to most.

It looked like... you didnt think there was a big difference between players at different stakes.

I thought it looked like you didn't think we realized that bad players play at all levels.

i got 10 free dollars sitting here with ur name on it Zach...i get 65% of the profit right?