micro limits question - no real content here

Darth Poker · #1 02-08-2006, 01:33 AM

ok, so I'm currently playing .02/.04 limit at absolute because they gave me $10 to play there, I'd never play there by choice again. anyways, I'm curious how different the players are at .50/1 for example? I've only played NL ring online for real $$, am learning fixed limit, and I hear all the time on this forum how terrible the players at .25/.50, .50/1 are and cant imagine they're as bad as the .02/.04 players. or am I just plain wrong?

kslghost · #2 02-08-2006, 01:37 AM

They are much worse at .02/.04. They're still bad at .50/1. They're still pretty bad at 3/6. And even up to limits of 5/10 and higher. Live games, you'll find bad players at any limit. Online too.

Basically, every limit has bad players. It's probably exponentially higher at the micro limits though. Let's pretend there's a formula. 1/1,000 players at 100/200 are bad. Multiply by the factor by which your limit is. So at .02/.04, you have 4000/1000 players that are bad. Some players are like 4 bad players. Or ten.

And I ramble.

kslghost · #3 02-08-2006, 01:38 AM

Of course, that wasn't an exponential formula. That was linear.

Darth Poker · #4 02-08-2006, 01:40 AM

of course [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

MrWookie · #5 02-08-2006, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that wasn't an exponential formula. That was linear.

[/ QUOTE ]

This made my smile. There are few places in this world where you'd need to come back and make this qualification to your post out of fear that you'd be nitted to death for not coming through with a properly exponential formula.