[gabbahh]

[ QUOTE ]
...and I think it reveals a different *flavor* that prevails in a small-stakes game. Yes, the players are generally softer, but I assume they are softer in ways that require significant adjustment in your game. If you walk into a $25NL table and try to play the same way you would at a $1000NL table, you’re not going to make NEARLY as much money as a great $25NL player would under the same circumstances. We can’t just learn how to beat the best games and assume that means we can beat any game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tough to answer this. But let's reverse it: no $25NL who walks into a $1000NL game will beat it. He might win a session, but if he stays too long on the tables, the good 1000NL players will eat him up.
A winning 25NL player however, who has played for an extended period on the 25NL tables, knows how to play near optimal at the 25NL tables. This has a lot to do with knowing the enemy. It will probably be very easy for a 1000NL player, to get to know the enemy at the 25NL tables. He will probably get to know his opponents much much faster than the 25NL-er AND will be able to beat the 25NL tables at a much higher rate.
So to me the key word is: adaptation. If you do not adapt to the playing styles of your opponents you will not win as much as you could, if you win at all. I think that a 1000NL player is better at adapting in general, then a 25NL player. And therefore, over time, a 1000NL player will be beating the 25NL table for a higher rate than the best 25NL players.
If the above is not the case then the 1000NL probably is not as hot as he thinks.


So yes, in general, I agree with you.