Middle Stakes better than Low?

[MrrrRock]

What are your opinions? Is it easier?

 

[Lipki3]

It's hard to make a mistake with a short stack. Big stacks are harder to play. It's my opinion.

 

[fundiver199]

If you are asking, if mid stakes games are easier to beat than low stakes games, then the answer is clearly no. Everything else being equal, games get more difficult to beat, the higher you move up. There is an old saying, which goes "maybe I should move up, where they respect my raises". But this is flawed thinking, because if you cant beat the worst players in the game at lower stakes, then there is no chance, you will be able to beat better players at a higher stake. The only exception to this would be, if the lower stakes are excessively raked to the point, where they become unbeatable, but thats more an issue in live poker than it is online.

 

[n9dream]

If you are asking, if mid stakes games are easier to beat than low stakes games, then the answer is clearly no. Everything else being equal, games get more difficult to beat, the higher you move up. There is an old saying, which goes "maybe I should move up, where they respect my raises". But this is flawed thinking, because if you cant beat the worst players in the game at lower stakes, then there is no chance, you will be able to beat better players at a higher stake. The only exception to this would be, if the lower stakes are excessively raked to the point, where they become unbeatable, but thats more an issue in live poker than it is online.

I made the mistake of moving up way too fast. Got frustrated losing at low stakes to ridiculous hands. Did ok for a while at higher stakes but then started making multiple bad decisions. My bankroll took a big hit and I’m back down at low stakes. It’s a learning curve.

 

[Axmanace]

If you are asking, if mid stakes games are easier to beat than low stakes games, then the answer is clearly no. Everything else being equal, games get more difficult to beat, the higher you move up. There is an old saying, which goes "maybe I should move up, where they respect my raises". But this is flawed thinking, because if you cant beat the worst players in the game at lower stakes, then there is no chance, you will be able to beat better players at a higher stake. The only exception to this would be, if the lower stakes are excessively raked to the point, where they become unbeatable, but thats more an issue in live poker than it is online.

I have to disagree with this.

Lower stakes theoretically have higher variance.
Especially micro stakes.

Although it’s true if you can’t win at micro - you won’t win at higher stakes - I think you can still objectively argue higher stakes is more profitable due to lower variance.

It’s also why in person is “easier” than online as well.

 

[RustyRed83]

In my opinion, yes. Although not across the board, I feel people care much more when they are playing for higher stakes, you get more respect and can play your strategy better. Low stakes is just bingo poker in my opinion, people seem to care less, about loosing a few bucks.

 

[77ecos]

at low stakes a good player will find it easier to win money despite the variance, at least there is more regularity and therefore the drop in bankroll does not usually cause any damage

 

[GiantBuddha]

Mid-to-high stakes are almost invariably less easy to beat than smaller stakes. They are also usually higher variance because there's way more preflop aggression, leading to larger wins and losses per hand. The weak players are often of similar skill across levels, but he better players get much better as you move up.


Having said that, the rake is generally significantly lower as you move up in stakes, which is basically a free winrate boost. Sometimes there's a weird big game built around one or two rich gamblers, and those games can be very good. And the skill-level difference is often more gradual than people think. But the idea that the game is somehow easier to play when there are fewer people in the pot is way off base. It may be simpler in some ways, but it's certainly not more profitable.

 

[fundiver199]

I think you can still objectively argue higher stakes is more profitable due to lower variance.

As you move up, you will see a lower and lower winrate measured in BB/100 (cash) or ROI (tournaments), but until a certain point this is compensated by the fact, you are playing for more money, and therefore your hourly winrate goes up. At some point though your winrate in BB/100 or ROI drop so fast, that your hourly winrate also drops and eventually become negative. The tricky point is, that we never know for sure, where that point is, so trying to move up is a constant trial-and-error process.

Moreover while its true, that loose games have higher variance in the mathematical sense, downswings will still be much larger and last for longer at higher stakes because of the lower winrate in BB/100 or ROI. You can find high stakes MTT players on pokerstars, who are clearly long term winners, but who lost for 10 years after some initial success. This will not happen in the micros, since games run all the time, and there is always another donkey waiting around the corner to dust off his stack to you.

 

[Leandro6803]

it depends on the situation that the flop opened, whether it was high cards or low cards, the positions, your chips and those of the opponent, the cards on the table.

example 1:

if you are in position UTG and open a bet 2x the bigblind with the cards AK and the opponent calls position BTN with pair QK.

on the flop opens: A 3 Q

in this case I like to make a low C-bet if I have the Q he will remain in the hand.

Example 2:

If you are in CO (cutoff) position and open a bet of 2x the bigblind with the A10 cards and opponent calls in BB (bigblind) position 45s.

On the flop opens: 2 6 10

in this case I bet heavily, just under half the pot or half the pot to take the pot right away because it can turn over other cards above 10 like J Q K.

 

[Axmanace]

As you move up, you will see a lower and lower winrate measured in BB/100 (cash) or ROI (tournaments), but until a certain point this is compensated by the fact, you are playing for more money, and therefore your hourly winrate goes up. At some point though your winrate in BB/100 or ROI drop so fast, that your hourly winrate also drops and eventually become negative. The tricky point is, that we never know for sure, where that point is, so trying to move up is a constant trial-and-error process.

Moreover while its true, that loose games have higher variance in the mathematical sense, downswings will still be much larger and last for longer at higher stakes because of the lower winrate in BB/100 or ROI. You can find high stakes MTT players on PokerStars, who are clearly long term winners, but who lost for 10 years after some initial success. This will not happen in the micros, since games run all the time, and there is always another donkey waiting around the corner to dust off his stack to you.

I think it also depends on whether your taking about tournaments or cash.

I was also including tournaments in my analysis.

 

[zipocool]

of course, with the increase in limits, the level of players will grow on the other hand and there will no longer be frank nonsense (if we mean cash and, in principle, tournaments too) such as at micro-limits where all-in players go on any weak cards

 

[tony2521]

I think that in the medium stinks you have a little more chances to play poker since in the low stakes there are many beginners and they play bingo or they pay you with an AK until the end with Q 9 7 3 J or with pair of 6 on the table and on table A Q 9 7 3

 

[Snake2007]

Sometimes a good bet can get you out of trouble and all the poker ignoramuses can throw away those shitty cards they usually pay for.

 

[MrrrRock]

After I played Hot 44$ yesterday I can confirm it. It just looks more like real poker. Tiny field, reduced illogical playing... minus is: you playing against people that know each other.
Played a lot of 11-22-27$ hyper-turbo 6max and some 33$ HU but they are full of casual players, hot 44 was kind of different

 

[GIB]

It's easier to play post-flop with a low stack. It is immediately clear what you will do next. There are no difficult decisions that do not always increase your stack. Such difficult situations are more common in the game with a medium stack.