Is there really a difference between $5 and $10 NL on Stars?

[Sean Fraley]

I moved up about Friday, and am getting seriously cornholed, as in I'm down 5 buyins in about 20 hours of play. There is a good chance that this is simple variance, but I thought it might not hurt to ask. I assumed from reading various posts that there really is no difference in play from limit to limit until you get to about $50NL, but it occurred to me that there actually might by a shift in play when going from the absolute lowest limit to the second lowest limit, maybe due to a large number of losing recreational players sticking to $5NL. Anyone have a take on this?

[SCBielski]

The short answer: no. The level of play really doesn't change until you hit at least $50NL. Most idiots don't mind throwing around a little money, as long as it's less than $50. To repeat myself, no, holla.

[poker_n00b]

i have trouble beating 25 nl but can beat 10 nl.

[SirNeb]

Every level does have difficulty differences. These differences are based on the sharks of the level. If the sharks are strong, even the fish will become a little more careful. It's just the ecosystem for each level.

Even from 5 and 10NL, you have a level difference. I say from what I remember, the difference is how loose people are willing to go all-in and how loose they are willing to call all in with TPNK. 10NL have fewer people who will go all in with Ace high PF and some people realizes the factor of kicker there. 25NL, most normal people don't usually go all-in PF with less than QQ. People are willing to go all-in with straights even with obvious 3flush board, obviously they go all-in with 2 pairs too.

Anyways, these are just generalizations. Once you are comfortable with a higher level, the lower levels will all seem similar because they are all pretty bad compared to you. Thus, a lot of people will say "oh anything under X NL is the same". There will always be more difficulty as you move up, this is just part of the ecosystem. It takes time to adjust. If you struggle with a higher NL, I say just keep playing in the NL you are comfortable with and learn to play better there. Usually it's just one leak or two that makes you are a break even/losing player or a winning player.

[stadler]

sean if you dont mind, could you share you sn on stars since I have probably played with you alot cause I play the .01/.02 tables. PM me if you dont want to share it in the thread. thx

btw when i play NL10 I dont feel there is really a difference in play. Like someone earlier said its mostly people who dont really care and are just throwing a few bucks around.

[Sean Fraley]

Thanks for the responses. I could be just a little bit jumpy, since right before I moved up I went through a ten buy-in downswing, followed by winning 20 buyins in a week and a half. When you couple that with the current downswing after moving up, it makes me wonder where the line is between variance, and "you're in over your head".

[emon87]

Obviously there is some difference, but it's probly just variance. Do you feel like you're getting outplayed, or are you just losing set over set nonsense?

[Sean Fraley]

Mostly it's been the result of being a suckout victim, but there have been a few big hands where I made some dumb calls. I think it might be a combination of variance and the psych effect of two downswings in close proximity.

[Check_The_Nuts]

stadler - I think your confusing 2NL->5NL with 5NL->10NL on stars.

I played on stars from 2NL->25NL going through all the steps. Yes there's a fairly big difference between stars 5NL and 10NL, and it took me a while to make that jump. I had similar troubles going from 10NL->25NL, but by that time I had figured out ways to jump up more efficiently.

IMO, at the different levels:

5NL:
Play is really weak/tight. There isn't much bluffing at all, if any. The common donks mistake is not betting large enough with his monsters, slowplaying too much, and not raising proper amounts etc. They call too much in general, but preflop raising and cbetting makes huge profits. Moster opponents are either call stations or weak/tight rocks IMO.

10NL:
Villians wake up a bit and grow a LITTLE bit of a brain. People start playing back, i remember a guy check raising 3 of my cbets IN A ROW! lol. There are multiple bad tags, of the 25/3/2 variety. Very easy to read, extremely exploitable. You have to start showing more selective aggression. Typical fish still have a problem maximizing their value, they value bet too small, and slowplay way too much. Showing selective aggression starts to become important. Picking flops/situations where a cbet is good is important. At this level you can still make huge mistakes and get paid off anyways, like check raising two villians with TPTK, etc.

25NL:
There's now solid tags in the game. For the most part, the donks slow play wayyy too much, but they still find a way to get a good portion of their stack in with their monsters (unlike before). The play is very tight at stars, and I remember betting TPNK in the blinds and if I got called not being good >60% of the time. Preflop raising and cbetting is fairly important, and works relatively well (probably better than 10NL). There's a lot less fish, and they stop paying off with middle pair, so maximizing value with monsters starts to become important.

IMO you probably need HUD to multitable 3 tables or more at 10NL. You may be able to do without, but I think 4 tables would be relatively hard at 10NL without HUD.

I figured out this method to moving up after having to drop several buy ins everytime I took a shot (mostly from playing bad, and not being completely used to adjustments I needed to make). I four tabled up the limits, so when I made the succesful jump from 10NL->25NL, I started by playing three 10NL tables while searching for a super-fishy 25NL table to play at. I think I'd sit at a table if the AVG POT was at $7 or more (super fishy table IMO). Once I started to get better, I lowered my requirement to $5 tables, and even tried some tight tables to get a feel for how tight I need to play against the rocks etc. I then started playing 2 25NL tables, then I noticed I'd often have a higher winrate on the 25's than the 10's, so I moved up shortly after that. I'll be trying to jump up to 50NL soon I think. Once I clear my bonus I'll absolutely be roleld for it, and I've already taken a couple shots (like ~100 hands played there, so nothing big).

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
stadler - I think your confusing 2NL->5NL with 5NL->10NL on stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he is. In OP's post 5NL = 0.01/2 since he talks about moving from the smallest stakes to the second smallest. Since the max buy in is $5, people often refer to Stars 0.01/2 as 5NL. I'm always confused about what to call it in my posts since there is often quite a large variation in stack sizes, with half the table playing <$2.



[ QUOTE ]

IMO, at the different levels:

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for this, I'm sure it will be helpful as I move up. Do you have any thoughts on 2(5)NL, where I am currently managing to lose money? I think I need to try and stop putting people on hands...

In answer to OPs question I played a couple of sessions at 5(10N)NL at Stars before realising I wasn't rolled for it, but it seemed more predictable than 2(5)NL. I long to be back there!

gl.

[Sean Fraley]

I was referring to .02/.05 when I said $10NL. I didn't realize that Stars had the same max buy-in for both.

[Spanky1974]

I played 26,000+ hands of .01/.02 with little variance. The .02/.05 level had a lot more variance for me. This is probably because I would play in the rooms with the largest pot sizes, and I ran into quite a few maniacs at the .02/.05. .02/.05 is easily beatable, but I didn't play it until I had made $200 at .01/.02, and then I just played a few thousand hands. I lost 10 buy-ins the first month I played .05/.10 FR. Overpairs or TPTK weren't +EV to get it all in with after the flop at this level for me. Anyway, all the three lower levels seem quite a bit different to me after playing a lot. My winrate has steadily dropped as I have moved up the levels too.

Drop back down to .01/.02 until your confidence and BR are back up. You will be crushing the .02/.05 in no time.

[phydaux]

I bought in at Stars for $100.00. I started at the .02/.05 NL tables with $5.00 buy-ins, and donked off ten of them over 60 sessions.

I dropped down to .01/.02 and am finishing my third straight month of solid, winning poker with >10PTBB/100.

I've made a couple of stabs back at .02/.05 but got slapped back down each time. So don't feel too bad, Sean. It seems to be a common occurance.

And before you ask, no, I won't PM anyone with my Stars screen name. No real reason, other than I don't want anyone on 2+2 to have it.

It just feels wierd to me - Asking questions here, posting hands and basicly proving beyond a shadow of a doubt how much I suck at poker, and then providing my screen name so anyone who wants some of my money knows exactly what mistakes I regularly make. What up with that? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[derosnec]

u can buy in for 200bbs at 5NL, so why would anyone want to play 10nl?

Anyways, I probably have 30-40k hands at 10nl and its a piece of cake.

25nl 6max for some reason is very nitty, hence my 45/28 stats.

[Check_The_Nuts]

2NL to 5NL was an extremely easy transition for me. I remember making a [censored] of bluffs at 2NL, just an absolute ridiculous amount of the time. Pretty sure i beat the level just by knowing that one pair is a good hand, 2 pair is a pretty good hand, and I should almost never fold a set or better.

I think i dropped maybe 3 or 4 buy ins whenevr I tried the jump the first time. Maybe. It was pretty smooth sailing really quickly though.

edit: lol wtf dero? Try that at pokerroom lol.

[Sean Fraley]

After reading the responses here, I clued into the fact that .05/.10 also has a max buy-in of $10. Since I had already decided to drop back to .01/.02 if my roll dropped down to $100, I gave .05/.10 a shot. For the first night since my move up, I finished the session with more than I started (started at $145 and change, ended $161 and change). Some of the responses here helped me maintain a certain degree of confidence, and also be more selective about my aggression.

After trying .01/.02, .02/.05, and .05/.10, my assessment in the short time I've played is that while there is not a large difference in play from .02/.05 to .05/.10, there is a jump moving up from .01/.02. I experienced the same thing when I moved up from .05/.10 limit on Party. I think that this is due to the fact that the absolute lowest limit seems to be the regular collection spot for the absolute crappiest players. These range from gamblers who hit and run a table shoving all-in every hand, the worst sort of calling stations, xaositects who think that absolute randomness is a strategy in and of itself, to just for fun players who know that they are going to lose long term, so stick to the bottom. While they may start out at or on occasion migrate to higher limits, the lowest limit of their game type is in fact their natural habitat. When you move up to the second lowest limit, you are in a fashion hauling yourself one step up from the central mass of the crap pile, and in my case it was a bit jarring. I think that what happened is that without moving up, I didn't realize how much of my winnings came not from any actual skill on my part, but from the appalling opposite of skill in my opponents. Once I found myself in games with players who, while bad, were not as hopeless as the ones I had been playing with, it made heretofore unknown leaks more visible. After today, I hope I can adjust well. If not, then I will move back down and give it another shot after my roll heals.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
xaositects

[/ QUOTE ]

what's one of them?

[Fiksdal]

PokerStars:

At $10NL the big blind is $0.1, so you buy in 100bb's deep. Standard.

At $5NL the big blind is $0.02 So you are 250 big blinds deep! This gives you a greater edge over inexperienced players. Pretty sweet!

This should make $5NL a lot more profitable, at least considering BB/100.

[Wolfram]

No.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
At $5NL the big blind is $0.02 So you are 250 big blinds deep! This gives you a greater edge over inexperienced players. Pretty sweet!

This should make $5NL a lot more profitable, at least considering BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha!

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Helpful.

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars:

At $10NL the big blind is $0.1, so you buy in 100bb's deep. Standard.

At $5NL the big blind is $0.02 So you are 250 big blinds deep! This gives you a greater edge over inexperienced players. Pretty sweet!

This should make $5NL a lot more profitable, at least considering BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the big blind at 5NL $0.05, not $0.02?

Anyway, I'd rather play at 10NL with 100BB than 5NL with 200BB. Sure, being deep stacked increases my edge over others, but pots are smaller. I'd rather sacrifice some edge from stack size for an opportunity to play at bigger pots.


Anyway, I noticed 2 big differences between 25NL and 10NL:

1. There are more TAGs. This of course is natural when moving up, but the point is that table selection is just that much more important (although, still not critical as it is at higher limits).

2. The fish tend to bluff a lot more. I've won a fair share of hands with K-high or a pair of deuces.

[Wolfram]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simple question, simple answer.

[MURK]

[ QUOTE ]

25nl 6max for some reason is very nitty, hence my 45/28 stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it always like that then? I just moved up to 25nl 6max and I thought I must be picking bad tables or something as I expected more action than this. I had one guy at 15/3.5/0.6 today over 70 hands.

[Sean Fraley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
xaositects

[/ QUOTE ]

what's one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a geek reference from Dungeons & Dragons. In the Planescape campaign setting, they are a group of people who are basically disciples of chaos who strive to have no method, rhyme, or reason to their actions, thoughts, or speech, instead acting in a completely random and chaotic fashion. I use the term to describe players who focus heavily on making their play random so as to be unreadable, but fail to understand that this is supposed to be used in small doses to balance their optimal play.

One of the characteristics I've noticed of many players who combine the characteristics of being inexperienced and uninformed is that they have a tendency to focus on one characteristic that good players have, and then try to build a style around that to the exclusion of all else. This is why you get some players who spend every hand trying to bluff every opponent with any two cards, or those who are the platonic ideal of rocks, playing only AA-JJ and AK, limping, checking, and calling only.

[pdoran10]

yeah, the blind structure.

[LearningCurve]

[ QUOTE ]
stadler - I think your confusing 2NL->5NL with 5NL->10NL on stars.

I played on stars from 2NL->25NL going through all the steps. Yes there's a fairly big difference between stars 5NL and 10NL, and it took me a while to make that jump. I had similar troubles going from 10NL->25NL, but by that time I had figured out ways to jump up more efficiently.

IMO, at the different levels:

10NL:
Villians wake up a bit and grow a LITTLE bit of a brain. People start playing back, i remember a guy check raising 3 of my cbets IN A ROW! lol. There are multiple bad tags, of the 25/3/2 variety. Very easy to read, extremely exploitable. You have to start showing more selective aggression. Typical fish still have a problem maximizing their value, they value bet too small, and slowplay way too much. Showing selective aggression starts to become important. Picking flops/situations where a cbet is good is important. At this level you can still make huge mistakes and get paid off anyways, like check raising two villians with TPTK, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thought this post was great. Thanks!

[ben wb]

I think there is definitely a difference between $0.01-$0.02 and $0.02-$0.05 on stars.

I sometimes play at $0.01-$0.02 just to chill out and playing a 26/18/3 style I've won at over 30PT BB/100 over 3000 hands. Obviously I was running pretty well and it's a small sample but it helps when some players will call off over 2 buyins with ace high.

eg.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool (http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php) from FlopTurnRiver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com) (Format: 2+2 Forums)

SB ($4.70)
Hero ($5.75)
UTG ($3.59)
MP ($2)
Button ($3.08)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button calls $0.02, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises to $0.08</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $0.32</font>, Button folds, SB calls $0.24.

Flop: ($0.67) 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets $0.2</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $0.9</font>, SB calls $0.70.

Turn: ($2.47) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $2.3</font>, SB calls $2.30.

River: ($7.07) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $2.23 (All-In)</font>, SB calls $1.18 (All-In).

Final Pot: $10.48

SB has Ac Kc (high card, ace).
Hero has Qd Qh (three of a kind, queens).
Outcome: Hero wins $10.48.

And I saw a lot of similar play.

I haven't seen any play quite that bad at $0.02-$0.05 when that deep and playing the same style was no way near as profitable. There are a lot less calling stations and 80-90% vpip players.

I actually have a much better win rate at $0.05-$0.10 than $0.02-$0.05c and I didn't notice any difference between those levels, if anything $0.05-$0.10c seemed a bit easier.

So I think you are spot on here.

[ QUOTE ]

After trying .01/.02, .02/.05, and .05/.10, my assessment in the short time I've played is that while there is not a large difference in play from .02/.05 to .05/.10, there is a jump moving up from .01/.02. I experienced the same thing when I moved up from .05/.10 limit on Party. I think that this is due to the fact that the absolute lowest limit seems to be the regular collection spot for the absolute crappiest players. These range from gamblers who hit and run a table shoving all-in every hand, the worst sort of calling stations, xaositects who think that absolute randomness is a strategy in and of itself, to just for fun players who know that they are going to lose long term, so stick to the bottom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have enough money to make a permanent move up to $0.05-$0.10 as long as you feel comfortable playing there.

[Marshall28]

i wouldnt think so.

[Everlong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
xaositects

[/ QUOTE ]

what's one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a geek reference from Dungeons &amp; Dragons. In the Planescape campaign setting, they are a group of people who are basically disciples of chaos who strive to have no method, rhyme, or reason to their actions, thoughts, or speech, instead acting in a completely random and chaotic fashion. I use the term to describe players who focus heavily on making their play random so as to be unreadable, but fail to understand that this is supposed to be used in small doses to balance their optimal play.

One of the characteristics I've noticed of many players who combine the characteristics of being inexperienced and uninformed is that they have a tendency to focus on one characteristic that good players have, and then try to build a style around that to the exclusion of all else. This is why you get some players who spend every hand trying to bluff every opponent with any two cards, or those who are the platonic ideal of rocks, playing only AA-JJ and AK, limping, checking, and calling only.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Sean Fraley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
xaositects

[/ QUOTE ]

what's one of them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a geek reference from Dungeons &amp; Dragons. In the Planescape campaign setting, they are a group of people who are basically disciples of chaos who strive to have no method, rhyme, or reason to their actions, thoughts, or speech, instead acting in a completely random and chaotic fashion. I use the term to describe players who focus heavily on making their play random so as to be unreadable, but fail to understand that this is supposed to be used in small doses to balance their optimal play.

One of the characteristics I've noticed of many players who combine the characteristics of being inexperienced and uninformed is that they have a tendency to focus on one characteristic that good players have, and then try to build a style around that to the exclusion of all else. This is why you get some players who spend every hand trying to bluff every opponent with any two cards, or those who are the platonic ideal of rocks, playing only AA-JJ and AK, limping, checking, and calling only.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part gets the love? If it is the brilliant use of xaositect in a poker setting, then let's try and make it part of the 2+2 vernacular.