General knowledge, the higher the stakes the more difficult the game.
Would it be possible that NL25 was actually easier to beat than NL10?
My personal belief is that NL10 is the stake where players who really take poker seriously and start to work hard on their game go for learning curve. NL2 is still fishfest where mechanical play will suffice. NL5 is very similar to NL10 but the winrate drops significantly with a crappy rakeback. NL10 has a game that resembles pretty much microstakes poker. 3bets are heavy there. Blind defends, squeeze, etc. Yet it's still a little less stingy to the bankroll than NL 25 for learning curve if things don't go right.
But for recreationals who just want to play poker 10c bb is still too small. I think they start to feel it at 25cBB where 4x raise pre makes a dollar pot, instead of 40c. I think that NL25 attracts more recs than NL10, while NL10 actually has biggerd concentration of eager to learn players.
Dont get me wrong, you encounter fish at nl10 of course, but I think NL25 is softer.
Would it be possible that NL25 was actually easier to beat than NL10?
My personal belief is that NL10 is the stake where players who really take poker seriously and start to work hard on their game go for learning curve. NL2 is still fishfest where mechanical play will suffice. NL5 is very similar to NL10 but the winrate drops significantly with a crappy rakeback. NL10 has a game that resembles pretty much microstakes poker. 3bets are heavy there. Blind defends, squeeze, etc. Yet it's still a little less stingy to the bankroll than NL 25 for learning curve if things don't go right.
But for recreationals who just want to play poker 10c bb is still too small. I think they start to feel it at 25cBB where 4x raise pre makes a dollar pot, instead of 40c. I think that NL25 attracts more recs than NL10, while NL10 actually has biggerd concentration of eager to learn players.
Dont get me wrong, you encounter fish at nl10 of course, but I think NL25 is softer.
