LC: Improved play at the lower buyins?

[cougar62]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the general level of play at the 6.50s on Stars has gotten better. The reason I post this is twofold. 1, to see if others have also noticed this, or if it's just me. And 2, if I'm right, then I'm hoping some of the respected vets from the higher levels will take this into account when responding to our OP's.

Don't get me wrong. The typical 6.50'er is still fairly awful, I just think I've seen less bad slowplaying and bluffing lately, which are the two hallmarks of bad play (doing both of the above too much). I find the villians doing this much more appropriately. I've also found bubble and HU play to be much better. Personally I've adjusted my play lately to these changes.

Final word, I am in no way trying to discourage players from higher buyins from responding to our posts. Quite the opposite, I value your opinions. But if I'm right, then we all need to factor this trend into our analysis and replies. I often see replies that say something like "well, it's a villian at the 6.50's, so...." Maybe this isn't as applicable as it once was. Or maybe I'm just nuts [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Just FWIW

[Kevin8423]

I have no idea about 6.50s but IMO the 16s are just as bad as when I started playing them heavily months ago.

[cougar62]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea about 6.50s but IMO the 16s are just as bad as when I started playing them heavily months ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that blows one of my theories, that some so-so 16 players have dropped down. I've noticed in sharkscoping opponents that more and more appear to have dropped down. But of course that could be selective sharkscoping, I usually don't bother with players who are clearly fish.

[BigCummins]

i played a couple hundred to warm up my bew bankroll there. they were a lot harder than i expected. not much difference from the 6.50s and in 16s imho.

[Kevin8423]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea about 6.50s but IMO the 16s are just as bad as when I started playing them heavily months ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that blows one of my theories, that some so-so 16 players have dropped down. I've noticed in sharkscoping opponents that more and more appear to have dropped down. But of course that could be selective sharkscoping, I usually don't bother with players who are clearly fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of a few who have, though unless you are just terrible at table selection and really unlucky when you sign up for games it isn't enough people to make a big difference.

[AMT]

i really wouldnt assume or worry about the 6.50s getting very difficult. i would be SHOCKED, even with the never ending posts titled "are low buy in sngs getting harder" if the top 6.50s players couldnt achieve 20% or higher ROI.

if it takes an extra couple of minutes to wait for a table with a couple of regulars to fill, so be it....even they are likely bad and wont detract too much from your ROI if youre playing well.


you also have to evaluate the potential counter inuitiveness of your post: how many solid players are going to be playing 6.50s in volume or for extended lengths of time?

[DLKeeper1]

11s definitely got harder on ftp

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

i really wouldnt assume or worry about the 6.50s getting very difficult. i would be SHOCKED, even with the never ending posts titled "are low buy in sngs getting harder" if the top 6.50s players couldnt achieve 20% or higher ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. The players are definitely better than they were 6 months ago, and it's tougher to achieve sick ROIs now. It used to be that players would light their money on fire and you could regularly be ITM at 25/50 or 50/100. Now there are more players playing tight early and will play push/foldish late, but your equity comes from the fact that they're primarily retarded and get to showdown on the bubble too much.

[PattdownManiac]

I just played some 6.5's to experiment with different multi-tabling setups, and they seemed as stupid as ever!

[DeuceSeven]

If the 6.50s were worse a few months ago, they must have been really bad. I've only seen a couple of tables where there are more then 2 guys with 15% roi with more then 200 games.