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

[johnmaltz19]

Obviously the microstakes player makes more mistakes than a high stakes player. I haven't played in a high stakes games yet but I played both micros and middle stakes, I think not so much different. You just have to put on volume to counter variance.

 

[fundiver199]

Funny how differently we see, experience it. I don't see so huge, unique differences. I see it, till mid level - even higher where i play very rarely, i see in streams, videos -, it is pretty much the same - the allin pusher % -, especially in bounty hunter tourneys, where are plenty sponsored players, and they force the flips. Really don't like to play against them, play those tourneys. Even in the normal tourneys.

There are plenty of situations in tournament poker, where the best strategy is to move all-in preflop, and especially if you can collect someones bounty. So what you describe is basically just people understanding the game and playing well. I sometimes observe, that some recreational players get annoyed about this. They want to see cheap flops and try to either hit something or outplay their opponent after the flop. They consider people moving all-in preflop to be "bullies" or "bingo players", who "ruin the game". It often tilts them, so that in the end they choose to call off with some really bad hand to "stop the bully". Of course stack sizes are everything here. If not good strategy to pile in 57BB over a 2,5BB open raise. But if the amount of the chips in the pot is already more than 20% of your stack, usually you should either push or fold, unless you are in the big blind and get a good price to just call.

 

[pokerdutchie]

I've played a few higher stakes tournaments $55-300 through some sattelites i'd won and indeed the same stuff happens. Difference i've noticed though is that in the tournaments I played players were more agressive(3-bets/4bets) and the players seem to be better/more succesfull across the board

 

[mrc1988]

Since micro-stakes is kind of its own game.
Or are higher stakes almost always more challenging?

Easier as in easier to turn a profit.

100% yes. I was told constantly when I first started "If you can't beat the lowest level how can you expect to move up?"

I have never and I mean NEVER ran well in $0.01 / $0.02 over even a moderate sample size of hands...maybe 20k plus, Just a consistent slow wave down on my charts.

However even at $0.05 / $0.10 I've noticed the gameplay being WILDLY different and far more fitting to my style. I feel like in one penny two penny you NEED the nuts to win a hand. I feel like at 5 times those stakes that you can win with rags.

Of course I'm sure this is all just BS. But for my own personal style this is what has worked for me. I still will convince myself sometimes it must just have been when I started poker and THAT's why I was so bad at 1c/2c. So, I will go back down for 10-20k hands over a few days. and like clockwork I will pullup my chart and it will be a slow decline downward of about 5bb/100. Never fails.

 

[alien666dj]

For me, the difference between high and low limits is only in the amount of bankroll necessary for a comfortable game.

 

[gambit1983]

i would say check out sportsbetting sites or bitcoin sites

 

[bnasp2]

Well, micro are more random. You have to play more tight and value bet a lot (even a bit weaker hands). Its easier for me, but have to set the right style.

So yes, for some style of play its better to go a bit up.

But beware, if you are lossing player on micro, then just going up is not the magical solution you are looking for.

 

[DanS87]

I find that the style of play changes considerably depending on the level of the buy-in/blinds.

As more and more money is involved, the play from your opponents gets tighter and more thought out. Micro level games suffer from looser players than at the higher levels.

Whether this is a good or a bad thing however purely depends on your style of play (or if you are experienced enough and able to easily adapt your play depending on the situation). You also need to consider your bankroll as well.

I find playing at the upper ends of micro games suits me best. Yes, there are some raving lunatics in the games shoving on absolutely ridiculous positions and hands, but I am not good enough yet with a big enough bankroll to justify playing at higher levels.

 

[Whompus]

In all reality I dont think it's the steaks that matter ,it's who's sitting at the table. In my Opinion anyway..

 

[Chica_bonita]

Hello!:ciao:
I don't think it's easier to play at high stakes. Do you consider high rates as an opportunity to make a profit faster?
We have a saying: "If you hurry, you will make people laugh." Don't you think that's a quick way to lose everything? Not always faster means better. There is another saying: "Patience and work are the key to success." Quietly increasing your bankroll at micro-rates is not such a bad decision.
Understand that it is not easier to play at high stakes: it's just different. In my opinion, each of the games is complicated in its own way: microstock players play more liberally, bluff more, are willing to take risks often, and it's not always easy to play with such players - on the contrary. The style of playing at high stakes is more disciplined, but this does not make it easier - it is also difficult to play with such players.
In the end, it's up to you to choose, but imagine: you have $ 5 in your account, you decided to play for $ 5 and lost - this happens, we don't always win. Bottom line: you have nothing left. And if you were playing for $1? Agree, such a loss would not upset you so much.

 

[mavrulit]

Never lose your head, if you can't play at the micros, then you should not go higher! Easier doesn't mean better. not in one case is not simple. Always think about how to increase your level of play, not the limit.

 

[flattershay]

I don't have much experience in high-stakes but I noticed some things in there. Most players are good at the game hence makes less mistakes. However, most players feels predictable to play against. They will do less crazy stuff compared to chaos on micros.

 

[Rockyfour]

No, but it's also not that harder.

 

[Beniciokgm]

I believe that from 109 dollars the game is better to play, there are fewer maniacs because there are many micro players who seem to be playing just to make others angry

 

[HonestlyLying]

Thanks, this was a great read. I have just recently started, and not planning to become a professional but maybe some small side income, and after a week playing my first micro-stakes holdem (I have obv known the rules and played some informal games before), I have to say that the higher the buy-in was, the tighter the players seemed to be. Obviously I have mostly freerolled in pokerstars awful 12.5 BB games which are just shoving left and right, but I just started to wonder if it indeed is "easier" in a way at higher stakes because people will react more like you expect, meaning that if you make the correct play, they will not just all-in randomly with hopes of turn+rivering a straight or something.
However, indeed there have been many seemingly very talented players at the micro stakes as well, (freeroll impossible to say really), and have no plans on playing higher except through satellites maybe.

Many people here talk about developing a strategy, and while I understand that is very important, despite reading stuff like final table strategy guides etc. I'm still not sure how a generalized strategy could be developed when you always have to play according to the players in your table. So what is the point of having a "strategy" if you have to constantly change it anyways depending on your seat?

 

[TeUnit]

I think the only reason it could be easier to make a profit is if the rake was higher at the micros, other than that you want to play with the worst possible players.

 

[LemonadeJooe]

Thanks, this was a great read. I have just recently started, and not planning to become a professional but maybe some small side income, and after a week playing my first micro-stakes holdem (I have obv known the rules and played some informal games before), I have to say that the higher the buy-in was, the tighter the players seemed to be. Obviously I have mostly freerolled in Pokerstars awful 12.5 BB games which are just shoving left and right, but I just started to wonder if it indeed is "easier" in a way at higher stakes because people will react more like you expect, meaning that if you make the correct play, they will not just all-in randomly with hopes of turn+rivering a straight or something.
However, indeed there have been many seemingly very talented players at the micro stakes as well, (freeroll impossible to say really), and have no plans on playing higher except through satellites maybe.

Many people here talk about developing a strategy, and while I understand that is very important, despite reading stuff like final table strategy guides etc. I'm still not sure how a generalized strategy could be developed when you always have to play according to the players in your table. So what is the point of having a "strategy" if you have to constantly change it anyways depending on your seat?

You learn a strategy and adjust based on circumstances.
You wouldn't charge pikemen with cavalry heads up, but engage them with infantry, and then charge their wings.
Just read Acevedo and apply accordingly to your
situation when and how you will learn with practice

 

[mobil1]

Ok

 

[dreamer13]

Like many players, it was at the high-stakes limit that I started having difficulties. These difficulties were not due to the fact that I was losing money, but rather to the fact that for a very long time I played almost to zero. At the same time, the most difficult thing was that I could not understand on my own whether I make so many mistakes that they eat up all the profit, or I just have no luck. Many people do not understand that if they cannot win at micro-stakes games, then they won't have a chance to win at higher stakes games with more competition. Many people feel that playing poker for $5 or $10 is beneath them. And this is understandable, because winning a pot of $20 is not of significant interest. Since this is the amount that will not particularly affect life. The realization of this reduces the adrenaline and the psychomotor arousal factor, for which many people play in the first place.

 

[Gallarado777]

it's better to play from $20 input there are more normal players and you will need to play well the smaller the entry amount is a lot of randomness

 

[Gipsystripsy]

CardsChat's freerolls also have significant differences. While the daily 100s has some good players, the german weekly has a high bingo affinity.

 

[messats]

Since micro-stakes is kind of its own game.
Or are higher stakes almost always more challenging?

Easier as in easier to turn a profit.

ive found that higher stakes are better suited for players who has evolved their game, micros have lots of fish and donk bet players, higer buy-ins allow for a more professional experience

 

[D0nk3y Hunt3r]

I didn't expect so many players which know what to do on lowest stakes.

 

[Noobs420]

I thought moving up the stakes is a little easier. I think it's bc the players take it a little more serious.

 

[Recreationalplayer]

The player pool gets tougher when you play at higher stakes. However, if you select tables properly, with 2 - 3 recreational player at the table, you can improve your win rate.