$1/2 loser and a $2/4 winner?

[Queensgrad]

I have over 30k hands (all PP) at each limit with very similar preflop stats (approx 16/5.5) and i am a loser at 1/2 for 3BB/100 but a winner at 2/4 for 1.6BB/100. I switch between the two as my bank roll changes due to non-poker reasons. Is this normal? Should I give up on 1/2 and play 2/4 under rolled (200BB)? interested on your opinions on the two levels.

[Bob T.]

I only play both levels occasionnally now, but I would think that 2-4 has to be a little tougher than 1-2. Your statistics seem to be an anomoly. Could it be that you don't respect the game as much when you are playing 1-2, and call off a lot of bets, because of the limits?

[Webster]

I'm like that. I suck at 1/2, maybe 1.5BB/100 in 60,000 hands but 2/4 I'm 2.45Bb/100 in 57,000 hands.

2/4 is an easier game, looser by a little and less aggressive for the most part. More scared money in 2/4.

HOWEVER - Bob does make a great point. I know that if it does not hurt to lose a hand I play looser. Not scared money but the old - whats another buck type dumb ass decision.

I have plade 10/20 and THAT was srcared money - big difference.

BTW - that bankroll HAS to be a totally seperate account - #1 rule!!!

[Oracle]

I would stick with 2/4 if you seem to be more successful at that limit... 200BB isn't really underrolled either.

[Mike Jett]

[ QUOTE ]
I would stick with 2/4 if you seem to be more successful at that limit... 200BB isn't really underrolled either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how willing he is to replenish if he goes bust.

Before giving advice like this, i suggest you spend a little time in the BBV forum. Really opens your eyes as to how long "short term luck" can really screw you over.

[W. Deranged]

Honestly, if over 60,000 hands you are an aggregate loser by bb/100 over 1/2 and 2/4, the issue might involve something structural with your game. If you *really* are a winner at 2/4, you should be winning at 1/2, and certainly shouldn't be losing at a rate as high as 3 bb/100, regardless of other factors (like you play less seriously at 1/2 or whatever).

[Dagger78]

200BB is underrolled unless you're BR is replacable when you go broke.

[JacksonTens]

[ QUOTE ]
200BB isn't really underrolled either.

[/ QUOTE ]

.... I lost 150BB in a day in that game.

JT

[Oracle]

Am I mistaken that 300bb is generally considered the upper end of a bankroll for a particular limit and that playing with 200bb is perfectly acceptable? Yes, you can go bust with any size roll but thats poker.

[thirddan]

oracle, 300 used to be considered a standard bankroll size...however, with more people playing short and people having logged many more hands over more years players are realizing the incredible swings that can happen to even solid winning players...i think that a lot of people are going with 600-1000 bb rolls...although if your bankroll is replenishable then you don't need to be as conservative...

[Webster]

200BB is fine. 300BB is used because it is REAL REAL hard to lose 300BB with standard fluctuation if you are a break even player.

Back on topic.

losing 3BB/100 in that many hands is very strange. BB/100 is all site dependent remember. A person can be 1BB/100 at 2/4 at one site and 3BB/100 at another at the same limit.

[jpg7n16]

You prolly semi-bluff too much at 1/2 and it works better at the 2/4.

1/2 will call too much... semi-bluff = not work.
2/4 becomes more weak-tight... semi-bluff = pick up some pots.

Value bet more marginal hands at 1/2. Play 2/4 as you're currently doing.

And if I'm way off. Sorry about that.

[Hielko]

Or you give the players at 2/4 more credit and you play better against them. Who knows?

Losing @ 1/2 big time and winning @ 2/4 suggest some serious issues with your game.

[Bob T.]

[ QUOTE ]

You prolly semi-bluff too much at 1/2 and it works better at the 2/4.

1/2 will call too much... semi-bluff = not work.
2/4 becomes more weak-tight... semi-bluff = pick up some pots.

Value bet more marginal hands at 1/2. Play 2/4 as you're currently doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

My usual game is 5-10, but if I find a good game I frequently play 3-6 and 10-20.

Occasionally I might play between .50/1.00 and 2/4. just to practice my value betting ONLY game. I'm sure it happens higher, but there are sometimes games at the 10-20 level that I have to reign my game so that I only make value bets.

I am pretty sure, at any level through 3-6 you can regularly make money, by value betting only, and adding in bluffs and semibluffs and steals only when the situation is very right. At the lower limits, if those plays are a staple of your game, you will probably experience a lot more variance, and if you get carried away, you might also walk accross to the wrong side of the breakeven line.

[InternetJunky]

There is a night-and-day difference between PP 1/2 and 2/4 in my experiences. Most 1/2 tables I played at had 3 (rare) or fewer people to every flop, while 2/4 the average seems to be 3-5. Most of the tables I sit down to have 3-5 players who have VPIP of 50 of more...something I never saw at 1/2.

[Erik W]

2/4 is tighter than 1/2, no question about it.
That is with half a million mined hands at each level.

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
2/4 is tighter than 1/2, no question about it.
That is with half a million mined hands at each level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please post some of your stats if you have 500k hands at each level...