Anyone Make More BB/100 on a Harder Site/Limit/Game?

[davidwilcock]

I do find higher limit games more profitable, although this reaches a cap when the blinds get to a level that I don’t feel comfortable losing pots at (as regards to my overall bankroll). I also find stars to be the best for me in this respect too. I'm pretty clear on why this is so. As the limits get high (I’m talking about micro to upper low limit games here) the standard of play gets higher (in theory) but with this too I find play becomes more formulaic. I can put player X on a tight-ish range pretty quickly and easily. However when it comes to lower limits I’m always going to end up paying the guy off with 2pair on a J4397 board with my overpair. I simply can’t put these guys on their hand as easily. For the same reason I hate playing at sites like Party, I just find playing against more the experienced player much more easy and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
There was a thread here a few weeks back on playing bad/fishy players and I do actually believe that beating these guys can be quite a tough discipline in itself. I’ve a bit more to say on this but I’m in a rush right now so ill try to get back to it tomorrow.

[prohornblower]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I'm now rolled for $1/2 but was waiting to confirm winning status at $0.5/1 (3BB/100 but only after about 4k hands mostly party some prima thrown in). Maybe I should just go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's right, Party 1/2 is noticeably more aggressive preflop than .5/1. Much more raising, 3-betting and capping PF than you see at .5/1

The big difference IMO is that you can't play suited Ax hands EVERY SINGLE TIME like at .5/1. Sometimes at 1/2 the pot has been raised or 3-bet by the time it gets to you and your A4s. Have to fold.

And if it's 5k hands over 2 months I'd say you need to play a lot more poker, sir!

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
While being able to get such results is counterintuitive and not what one would find on average, I'm wondering if this might occur sometimes because a persons particular style of play matches up better with the style usually found at a particular site, limit or game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is usually the case. Most players don't know how to react properly to complete fish; their failure to adjust cuts into their winrate, which is usually still positive only because their opponents play so badly.

[x vikram]

Owned

OMINOUS!

[winky51]

Totally disagree with you. I will take the fishiest passive table you can give me. 9 fish and me is a great YAHOO from me. A no foldem game I love. I can call with all sorts of +EV drawing hands in many positions since everyone calls and no one raies because AA gets sucked out on so many times. I follow, whats his name, philosophy of ram and jam the pots with 2nd best drawing hands preflop. My +EV from the hand drops the rake effectively and playters pay me off when I hit the monster thinking I am pushing AA or KK. The swings are more but the pots are huge. I used to have a problem with these games. I ran the simulator of AA, T9s and 8 random hands. the AA had the most equity and the T9s 2nd most. But this is all for limit. You have to adjust your game to the players. Of course I prefer live to online.

No no limit I think I prefer my players to have knowledge of the game but not too much, a level or 2 beneath mine is best. You can never put a super calling station on a hand and if they suck out on me for a couple huge pots that gets to me. Well it used to I have not played NL cash for a while.

Tournaments I really don't care. For me tournaments have so much information with the limited chip play that I can outthink, outplay, and value bet/push for profit. ESPECIALLY live.

So I would have to say Party is my favorite for limit and Poker Stars for tournaments.

Party is a fish market and with a little 20 minute investment in table selection you are on your way to profit.

PS has the 1500 buy in SNGs and other juicy MTT with players just itching to push their stacks in.

Personally I will take live tournament play over all of these. I rule there.

[Lawman]

[ QUOTE ]
And if it's 5k hands over 2 months I'd say you need to play a lot more poker, sir!

[/ QUOTE ]

Would love to...but with a full time job and a wife I'll take what I can get!

[damaniac]

The biggest problem with this question (which is interesting) is that very few people are going to have a substantial number of hands (>100k) at various levels to compare winrates. And even at 100k hands, there is a great deal of room for error and variance in the winrate...or something, whatever the terminology is. So as cool as it is for some guy to come on and say, "Yeah, I can beat the 30/60 for 2/100 but can't beat .50/1" after 10k hands, it doesn't tell us anything other than how he's running.

[davidwilcock]

I was talking NL

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
something, whatever the terminology is. So as cool as it is for some guy to come on and say, "Yeah, I can beat the 30/60 for 2/100 but can't beat .50/1" after 10k hands, it doesn't tell us anything other than how he's running.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMM I'm not sure this is necessarily valid; unless there's such a thing as "ugly variance at only one site". Executive summary: I play party and get murdered; I play other sites and don't. I return to party and again get killed.

Normally I play $1/2 6m and have played party exclusively for months (ever since starting online poker); and almost lost my mind trying to understand why others I know can win at 50c 6m whereas I get mercilessly crucified. I don't lose as badly at party $1/2 6m but still can't crack it either.

After playing a number of other big sites (now) incl. $2/4 6m which seems easy and immediately returning to party whereupon I get slaughtered in 50c 6m, I'm starting to think that really aggressive players THAT CAN'T ADJUST (like me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) could find some rough-sledding against the multitude of sheer lottery-playing at party 50c 6m (not as many but still disproportionate at party $1/2 6m IMO).

Since I personally know ppl that beat the party ml 6m games I take responsibility for not being able to do so myself. But try as I might I just never seem to be able to soften as much as is (apparently) required. And I think I suffer from "Phil Helmuth" syndrome which I define as insisting that the other guy "can't possibly be this stupid to be playing 'that'; therefore he isn't" but in reality, he was. Buh-bye $$...

Mike

[damaniac]

How many hands?

But I do agree that people who can't adjust will lose badly at some sites/limits and not others. Just like I tell my buddy who can't beat .5/1 but does fine at 3/6 when we tells me he's a good player who can't beat that game, i tell him if he were truly a good player, he could adjust to game conditions and beat it, since it is very soft.

People do stuff like reraising TPTK and overpairs multiple times against very passive players b/c they have a good hand. Well, yeah, but when Mr. 50/2/.3 caps the flop, you are in trouble.