kinda noob questions

[genoramix]

Hi all,

I play online sits with very few money involved. Actually, i have been playing poker for about 6 months, and i wouldn't say i'm a winning player(a *bit* different since i play sits though). I get even, but that's pretty much it. The bonuses on the site i play pretty much payed for my losses of the first 2 months of real-money play.

Anyway, i used to play cash games, but now i'm pretty much only into sits(and when i try to play cash games again, i lose, though before when i didn't play any sits i would win about 5 to 10$/day playing at 1-2cts tables. Sits made me too much of an aggressive player)

So...After a SNG losing streak that started a month ago(was playing 1$ or 2$ sits) i lowered the buyins, to 50cts.
I'm winning again despite the horrendous rake they take on cheap sits(20% arghh) and since it's been only 2 months(a bit less actually) i haven't figured out some things yet :

I read that playing sits whith higher buy-ins was indeed more easy, because the players knew more of the ABC thus making them more predictable. Ok, a good player could change stlyes of play to avoid being read too easily, but i'm tired of freaks calling an all in move with lowest pair, or even less sometimes and winning it because of lady luck, although i'm generally the tightest player at the table.
(like hero : AKs raises 5x BB, villain k5os calls the raise, flop comes 526, hero raises, villain reraises, hero puts him all-in(flush draw), and he calls.(hero has a bigger stack than he does, if not hero wouldn't try this kind of risky move). of course, Hero loses 80% of his stack...)

...Writing this might be because i finished 3rd or 4th a few times in a row before writing this post...

Anyway, do you think it's true the higher buy ins are more predictable?
Will there be a big difference in styles of play say between a 1$ sit & a 5$ sit?
Depending on the answer, should i raise my buy ins again?

As well, for a while i played only 6 seater sits. Now after trying the 10 seaters, it seems to me it's easier to get in the money. Stupid players put their chips in the pot with nothing quickly, and if i manage to make 1-2 right moves at the right moment, i can easily double up my chip stack when it gets down to 5-6 players.

So again, a few questions :
Do you think my theory is right about 10 & 6 seaters?
If it's right, will it be valid too for sits with higher buy-ins?
(i mean 5$ buy ins for example, but not higher, as my bankroll is of 200$ and i CAN'T go under. If i do, my "career" as a poker player is finished for a while(i live on swiss wellfare, which is good enough to live well, but still))

Thank you for your input.

PS: sorry for the silly questions, but all i got in the beginners forum was a silly answer, so i figured i'd put it here)

[RexWoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I read that playing sits whith higher buy-ins was indeed more easy, because the players knew more of the ABC thus making them more predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong, super wrong. Higher buy-in = better player = harder for you

[ QUOTE ]
but i'm tired of freaks calling an all in move with lowest pair, or even less sometimes and winning it because of lady luck

[/ QUOTE ]
you should be glad being paid by worse hand. That's why the lowest limit are easier.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think my theory is right about 10 & 6 seaters?

[/ QUOTE ]
6 or 9 are just a change in style. Play what you prefer, that's all.
[ QUOTE ]
If it's right, will it be valid too for sits with higher buy-ins?
(i mean 5$ buy ins for example, but not higher, as my bankroll is of 200$ and i CAN'T go under. If i do, my "career" as a poker player is finished for a while(i live on swiss wellfare, which is good enough to live well, but still))

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a looser at the smallest limit, you will only be a bigger loser at highest one. Just be sure of that.

Beat the smaller when it's easier, then move up, not the reverse.

[flopton]

[ QUOTE ]

I read that playing sits whith higher buy-ins was indeed more easy, because the players knew more of the ABC thus making them more predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought similar to this at the 12s as well, for example should I sit in at the table of regulars, or try the 24s - but "ease of winning" is not the motivation here, it's getting better.

A solid ABC game, is predictable because it is closer to the often unexploitable style required to win SNGs. No matter what you do a lot in the BB, if an ABC player is 'predictably' pushing into your blinds, there is no option for you to take that doesn't give them EV (other than trying to make some note-worthy spite calls for future games, but that often doesnt work).

I'm taking 'predictable ABC' poker here as not just tight/solid but opening up later as suggested by ICM and pushing/calling as correctly as possible. I think a good motivation for moving up is to play against opponents that are closer to perfecting this, observe them, and get better.

You won't get beat by as many 'crazy suckouts' but just by good plays, and tighter/more aggressive players. It does obviously lose money faster but the experience you gain by trying to move up when you are bankrolled for it is worth it in my opinion.

It's like playing a sport against a group of 10 year olds. You'll definitely win more, there will be only flukes where they beat you. And playing a professional team will beat you consistently, but you will get a lot better by trying to compete at that level rather than just destroying the kids.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
read that playing sits whith higher buy-ins was indeed more easy, because the players knew more of the ABC thus making them more predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone that tells you this is an idiot. The worse your opponents, the easier it is. If can't beat the worst players, you won't beat better players.

Stick to your current stakes and continue to work on you game.

Stop semi bluffing cause people won't fold. Just value bet them to death with your good hands. Don't slow play, etc.

Don't fall into the thought, well I have him covered I can gamble with him. -EV is -EV even if your stack can 'afford it'.