Pokerstars player skill... (NLTRN)

[ArtMonkRules]

I've been pretty much crushing my opponents in the $5.25 HUNL tournies (61.4% win rate; 400+ games). Can I expect the same sort of dominance when I move up to the 10.50's? And how about the 21's? Basically my question is how does the skill level of the opposition increase, if at all, as you move higher in buy-ins at Stars?

[Nichomacheo]

$10s -- not a big difference
$20s -- they make less glaring mistakes, but still have plenty of holes
$50s -- somewhat tighter, more consideration for position. generally more aggressive, but still plenty of fish

[slimbob]

[ QUOTE ]
$10s -- not a big difference
$20s -- they make less glaring mistakes, but still have plenty of holes
$50s -- somewhat tighter, more consideration for position. generally more aggressive, but still plenty of fish

[/ QUOTE ]

57.5$ - ?
115$ -?
230$- ?

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$10s -- not a big difference
$20s -- they make less glaring mistakes, but still have plenty of holes
$50s -- somewhat tighter, more consideration for position. generally more aggressive, but still plenty of fish

[/ QUOTE ]

57.5$ - ?
115$ -?
230$- ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Some thoughts -

In 100s+, the key is to sit first. There are only a handful of very good HU SNG players on Stars(high level at both hand reading and HU SNG theory), and most of them feel out each other and anyone new thats good pretty quickly and just avoid them for the most part b.c playing essentially your clone is not gonna be very profitable at 220s. For higher, its a different story, b.c the target is no a longer a fish(usually) but instead someone you have a small edge against.

So sit first, prove you're good, and most regs won't touch you unless they have beef with you or want to play a tough match for development. The difference this can make to your ROI is very, very big.

However, if you wanna play higher than 220, it makes a lot of sense to play a guy like The Camel at 220 and get a good grasp before you play higher. Beating fishies will only hurt you in preparing for a truly good player, b.c good player's game is based mainly on exploiting the common "fish expliotation" strategies most sub-550s regs use - a tricky and interesting subject.

[Nichomacheo]

I played fish for about a year straight. Zero good players. I made money, but my poker game suffered significantly. Play, study, and get better, and the money will follow.

[Sheetah]

(sorry for hijack) And how about Full Tilt? Compared to Stars?

[Goldmund]

My experience is at the 50-110$ on Stars and I'd say in the fifties about half of the players have huge holes in their games (against them you should score about 75% I think), whilst in the 100 and 110's about a third of the players kinda suck. At every level a step higher you will find the average player a bit stronger and the number of total idiots decrease. Goldmund

[Goldmund]

I recently switched over to FT due to rakeback and I'd say the level of play is pretty similar. There is a difference in the structure though. There is more 'play' in both the Turbo's and the non-Turbo's on Stars. Goldmund

[wildzer0]

From my experience, here is not a big difference in skill between the 'average' low level player and the 'average' $100 player - they just have different leaks. Although, when I do encounter a good player at the 100s (which isn't very often), they're significantly better than good players at lower levels. I am noticing the most significant skill difference thus far going from 100s to 200s.

[WutRUTryin2Hit]

[ QUOTE ]
From my experience, here is not a big difference in skill between the 'average' low level player and the 'average' $100 player - they just have different leaks. Although, when I do encounter a good player at the 100s (which isn't very often), they're significantly better than good players at lower levels. I am noticing the most significant skill difference thus far going from 100s to 200s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is deceptive, $100 players are definitely better than lower limit players on average, and the average 100 player is def. better than the average 5 or 10 player, but it doesn't always seem like it because there are a lot of bad 100 players. But I mean I know if I sharkscope my ROI at steadily ascending levels, it goes down, and that's true for everyone I'm sure, so I think it's pretty much an empirical fact that 100 players are better.

Anyhow, my experience is that players on avg do get better pretty evenly as you go up, but definitely at 200 there is a marked decline in true fish. I think if you did some sort of graph, that would be where the most noticeable curve in the line appeared. But the fish are still out there, I played a truly horrible guy the other day in a $500 who had a -33% ROI heads up (don't worry, I helped improve it for him a bit lol).