The Biggest Secret In Poker... Revealed!

[iggymcfly 0]

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

[rwood 0]

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

[bdc30 0]

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

Whichever limit Andy Beal wants to play.

[Jordan 1]

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

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

[iggymcfly 0]

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.

[GoingBusto 0]

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

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...GBPS - Nice avatar.

[aucu 3]

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

[No_Neck 0]

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

[Zach6668 513]

So I guess the end result in this post is:Who is going to stake me for the 100/200 game?

[mtdesmoines 3]

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

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

[Actuary 3]

So I guess the end result in this post is:Who is going to stake me for the 100/200 game?

Do you win consistently at $1/2?

[antistuff 0]

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.

[Zach6668 513]

Do you win consistently at $1/2?

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. :icon_dance: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.

[iggymcfly 0]

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.

[Actuary 3]

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

[antistuff 0]

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.

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.

[TheCinciKid 0]

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.

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.

[spikymarv99 0]

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.

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.

[Zach6668 513]

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.

[JMoney2681 0]

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.

QFMFT

[iggymcfly 0]

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.

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.

[Abbaddabba 0]

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.

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.

[quadaces 0]

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.

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

[Royal_Tour 0]

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

[Acid_Knight 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.