Has anyone found a bit higher stakes easier than micro-stakes?

[GarotoMaroto]

I dont think so,and i believe this does not make much sense XD
I was kinda nailing 0,55 bounty builder and used my 16,50 ticket to play and i just didnt make a single cent XD
Iam improving since them and i believe maybe now i can make money but of course,the online higher stakes field is probably the hardest to play
God bless

 

[budles007]

mayby

 

[Station_Master]

It's easier in the sense it's easier to range people and less frustrating to see wierd hands that suck out on you, but in general no, microstakes is alot easier as so many fish will just donate their stack. Your win rate will usually decline each step up you take (in cash games and presumably same for tourneys too)

 

[maestro121920]

harder to get value from weaker hands

 

[nerobs9]

At higher limits, many players are adequate and therefore the game is better.

 

[CaptainMooti]

Higher stakes are only harder if you worry about the money and towards late ITM.

 

[heguli82]

In general, higher are harder, but i do think it depends situation over all. I rather take 500e heads up against millionare then 100e heads up against everyday guy.

 

[KRANKES]

Sure, only the difference between 1/2cts and 2/5cts is remarkable. In microstakes almost noone who is in the pot will fold his hand, so it's not poker, more cardplaying. In 2/5 at least most player have a common sense of poker and it's way more fun to play there.

 

[azteca6]

It's the same thing, only the number of players or participants varies, you'll always find those in love with an A who would die with her without anything else and it will come out safe

 

[Baldy86]

i think it is easier because you will make more money with your hands faster . on the lowest stakes you cant really make much .....1 hand in the "higher" stakes brings you more money than 3 hours of very low stakes lol

 

[Rockyfour]

Possibly, if you are over bluffing, and people are over folding because they are respecting the money more and are more careful with their plays, then potentially you will find higher stakes to be easier against certain opponents, maybe even most opponents.

 

[Phyrrura]

Do u have enoough games to assume u are being profitable? Maybe u just didn't played enough to reach the long run and still can't tell if it's really easier.

 

[hennessy5]

Microstakes players go all in with 8 5 off preflop and somehow manage to flop a straight. Easier to beat most of the time but they do not think rationally

 

[JTownsend]

I think it's fallacious to say 'if you can't beat microstakes, how will you ever beat high stakes?' because that implies that Poker is WHOLLY a game of skill, when it isn't. Luck is the unchanging absolute across the stakes, and one person playing five calling stations in micros is like playing one oppo holding five hands. With five hands he can call to the river and chances are he will draw out with one of his hands. This means hero will lose to five terrible players simply because any one of them will likely draw out on you. Their group equity is far higher. They won't each win overall individually of course - obviously there'll be a wild variance in their wins across the five - but as a five, their averaged equity is obviously higher.

 

[rachelle2291]

I have basically gave up on ACR now that they no longer offer 2 dollar buy in spin and gos and the lowest they offer is 5 dollars. I used to be able to at least break even at 2 dollars but at 5 I just donate. I think there is a sizable difference in skill level of my opponents between the 2 levels.

 

[fundiver199]

I think it's fallacious to say 'if you can't beat microstakes, how will you ever beat high stakes?' because that implies that Poker is WHOLLY a game of skill, when it isn't.

When poker players talk about "beating a game", we mean over a sample large enough, that skill edges become far more important than variance. Over a small sample obviously anything can happen. But just because you play a few midstakes MTTs and take second place in one of them, does not mean, you are beating midstakes MTTs. And in similar fashion even a solid winning player might loose over an insignificent sample like 100 microstakes MTTs. But that does not mean, microstakes MTTs are "difficult to beat". It just mean, that many people expect instant results and lack the patience and work discipline required to be a long term winning poker player.

 

[fundiver199]

I have basically gave up on ACR now that they no longer offer 2 dollar buy in spin and gos and the lowest they offer is 5 dollars. I used to be able to at least break even at 2 dollars but at 5 I just donate. I think there is a sizable difference in skill level of my opponents between the 2 levels.

That makes a lot of sense. Across sites there are already a lot of SnG regs in $5 games. Players, who have grinded SnGs for years, and played 100.000`s of games across sites. Most of these dont bother with $2 games though, so they will tend to be softer in general.

 

[JTownsend]

When poker players talk about "beating a game", we mean over a sample large enough, that skill edges become far more important than variance. Over a small sample obviously anything can happen. But just because you play a few midstakes MTTs and take second place in one of them, does not mean, you are beating midstakes MTTs. And in similar fashion even a solid winning player might loose over an insignificent sample like 100 microstakes MTTs. But that does not mean, microstakes MTTs are "difficult to beat". It just mean, that many people expect instant results and lack the patience and work discipline required to be a long term winning poker player.

This doesn't address the fact that five drawing hands beats one over x hands though. If you play 10,000, or 1,000,000 hands against five no foldem drawing hands, you will lose.

EDIT: I understand obviously it must be possible to beat as some people evidently do profit somehow on microstakes, but in theory with an environment full of calling stations, the calling stations definitely reduce the profitability because of the absolute luck element

 

[Poker Orifice]

Higher stakes are only harder if you worry about the money and towards late ITM.

So the game plays about the same then?

 

[Poker Orifice]

This doesn't address the fact that five drawing hands beats one over x hands though. If you play 10,000, or 1,000,000 hands against five no foldem drawing hands, you will lose.

EDIT: I understand obviously it must be possible to beat as some people evidently do profit somehow on microstakes, but in theory with an environment full of calling stations, the calling stations definitely reduce the profitability because of the absolute luck element

I think it's just the opposite. As you move up you won't find players as willing to pay off value bets with weak holdings.

 

[fundiver199]

This doesn't address the fact that five drawing hands beats one over x hands though. If you play 10,000, or 1,000,000 hands against five no foldem drawing hands, you will lose.

EDIT: I understand obviously it must be possible to beat as some people evidently do profit somehow on microstakes, but in theory with an environment full of calling stations, the calling stations definitely reduce the profitability because of the absolute luck element

Its true, that we win less often in multiway pots, but in return we win larger pots. If 5 people put money into the pot, and you win 25% of the time, that creates a significant profit already. You just need to learn to play postflop well, which is why, "bad regs" often struggle with playing in loose games. By "bad reg" I mean someone, who has started to learn poker strategy, but they have not yet put all the pieces of the puzzle together. So "bad regs" are somewhere between a fish and a good reg. For instance they might have learned to raise preflop and C-bet the flop. But they have not learned when NOT to C-bet the flop, and they are trying to much to win every hand instead of focusing on winning chips.

Another thing, which "bad regs" struggle with in loose games, is the increased variance. In cash games you will get stacked more often, and in tournaments you will have more early bustouts, because the pots are bigger, and the opponents get to showdown more often. And this can be tilting, especially when you lose to someone, who played very poorly. Because then there is this extra element of pride or ego, where you feel, you deserve even more to win, because the opponent is so much worse.

One of the differences between good and bad regs is, that good regs have learned to come to piece with the fact, that fish need to get lucky sometimes, or else there would not even be a game in the long run. So good regs will never make comments in the chat about, how other people played, and they will especially never berate the fish. Whereas "bad regs" are the once, who go crazy in the chat and start to act like a poker teacher, when someone puts a bad beat on them.

 

[georgi krastev]

Nope, the lowest are easiest.

 

[moularaki]

it seems to me that in micro players are more into going all in because the stakes are not high so if they loose it is not much

 

[JTownsend]

I wonder how Zoom tables fit into all this? I'd guess they're less profitable even still?

 

[Dasha_21]

I mostly play freerolls