Is 10/20 like 4x harder than it was 1-2 years ago? - Page 3

Jstyal · #1 10-07-2006, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think for an experienced player the winrate at 5/10 or 10/20 should be the same as 0.5/1... call me crazy but I believe it. The reason 10/20 is harder than 0.5/1 when you first learn poker is because of the increased aggression and because you simply don't have enough experience to know what to do in certain situations. Once you get more experience you can outthink the other 10/20 players because you have learned how they think. With 0.5/1 players there is often no rhyme or reason to what they do so, while they of course make more mistakes, it is difficult to outplay anyone and really get true value. That is a tradeoff. 5/10 and 10/20 are just different than 0.5/1, not tougher per se. Basically if you have many 100's of thousands of hands and have read these boards for 2 years or whatever, you should be able to beat 10/20.

And don't forget the much better rake at 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to play .50/1 at party more than 3 yrs ago (and I have no reason to believe the landscape there has changed) so I speak with exp when I say I think you're crazy. heh. Anyone killing the .50/1 for say 4bb/100 is really killing them for about 9bb/100 given the rake penalty down there. That's a testament to just how bad the opposition is down there. Their gross preflop errors compounded by their utter lack of hand reading pre and post flop and their passivity makes them prime fodder. You cannot say the same for 10/20, where generally you find players a little better at hand reading, are way more aggressive (vs. .50/1), and overall players here seem to have some preflop stretagy vs .50/1 where no one has a semblance of a clue in that area. At .50/1 you dont have to play worth a damn postflop since only a good tight starting hand selection will get you $$$. Heck you don't even have to defend your blinds vs a blind steal. Just check your option when everyone limps in. But starting at around 10/20, you are forced to play postflop if you want to have a decent winrate. You are forced into stealing and defending your blinds; you are forced into dealing with tricky and aggro players; you are forced to deal with many more c/rs et. I don't think it's close.

kapw7 · #2 10-07-2006, 09:00 AM

I don't think JH wrote anything different than your long stating the obvious post.

kapw7 · #3 10-07-2006, 09:11 AM

I'll try to explain how I see it before I get flamed.
There are 2 categories of poker games. Where you play a boring mathematics based game and cash in from terrible opposition. The other category is where you need to play poker.
So 0.5/1 and 10/20 can be thought as the "easiest" games in their category. I don't know if the winrate will be the same and it doesn't really matter and noone will ever try to prove this in practice.

The general message is that 10/20 is the easiest game (ie decent winrate) for someone who plays "poker".

climber · #4 10-07-2006, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The general message is that 10/20 is the easiest game (ie decent winrate) for someone who plays "poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this distinction would have to go to 5/10. More availalbe games, more horrible opponents, fish are not decent postflop, plus I can 5-7 table it pretty easily.

As I type this though I'm starting to think that anything I can 5-7 table easily maybe isn't in the "playing poker" category you refer to. But I guess I really dont care if its boring or math based I just play for $.

Jstyal · #5 10-07-2006, 12:33 PM

Yeah. I may have misread his post. Still, "I think for an experienced player the winrate at 5/10 or 10/20 should be the same as 0.5/1..." beared repeating the "obvious."

mscags · #6 10-07-2006, 06:24 PM

I've been playing for a few hours today and for the most part the games have been absolutely terrible, I dropped down to play some 5-10 because they wre so bad.

milesdyson · #7 10-07-2006, 06:33 PM

is everyone not mentioning sites for a reason? we're just talking 10/20 in general or what?

mscags · #8 10-07-2006, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
is everyone not mentioning sites for a reason? we're just talking 10/20 in general or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I just assumed we were talking about Party, thats where I was

wdcbooks · #9 10-07-2006, 08:20 PM

I was a regular at Party 10/20 a couple of years ago and was a decent winner, running at over 2bb for 100k hands. I went on a downswing that wasn't a big deal and started playing at Absolute and Eurobet for rakeback.

Either the play has steadily gotten better or I have become steadily worse. I can make much more by six tabling $109 sit and gos, and by playing 2/4 NL. I have given up. The curious thing is that the best players, like Dave_Wilkes and Victor have moved on to higher limits. It is the run of the mill players I am not beating.

Scary_Tiger · #10 10-07-2006, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was a regular at Party 10/20 a couple of years ago and was a decent winner, running at over 2bb for 100k hands. I went on a downswing that wasn't a big deal and started playing at Absolute and Eurobet for rakeback.

Either the play has steadily gotten better or I have become steadily worse. I can make much more by six tabling $109 sit and gos, and by playing 2/4 NL. I have given up. The curious thing is that the best players, like Dave_Wilkes and Victor have moved on to higher limits. It is the run of the mill players I am not beating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...