Limit Question
Is it possible for a player who is average (read: break even) in low limit games (ie 2/5, 5/10) to be a better player (ie more consistant winner) at mid-limit games? If one has the self-discipline to stay within a reasonable set of parameters, then the pay-off would only reinforce those guidelines, right? I'm just looking for some feedback because, frankly, my current bankroll would not support such a move. Yet. Thanks, all. 
Comments
No. The low limit game is a game of disipline.. aka good starting cards with good flops. If you are breaking even in those games, you probably have a major leak somewhere that is costing you serious bets. Moving up will get you playing with better players who will exploit you better than the LL players could.
Hmm... could one possible explaination for the break even 2/5 play be the large rake that B&Ms collect on the pot? Its possible that they turn a winning player into an average one..
This is certainly possible. The 2-5 rake makes it tough to beat. The 2-5 opponents are generally pretty brutal, so it might not be impossible for the very best players to beat the rake, but certainly quite difficult.
Low-limit poker definitely involves a careful balancing act between opponent skill and rake.
Yes, of course. It is entirely possible that a person knows how to play mid-limit poker well and does not know how to play low-limit poker well.
Does this tell us that someone who is having mediocre or poor results at low-limit should move up to mid-limit? Absolutely not. Can we categorically say that someone having poor low-limit results should *not* move up in limits? Of course not.
Choose the games you think you will do the best in in the long run *and* that your bankroll can handle.
Do not use any of the following as reasons for moving up from low-limit.
1. My opponents are playing badly.
2. I'm getting rivered all the time.
3. You can't get anyone out by betting.
4. My opponents play any two cards pre-flop.
5. You can't put your opponent(s) on a hand because they call on the flop/turn with anything.
If you can't adjust your poker game to any of these opponent behaviors, you certainly will not be able to adjust to the moves that *more* skilled players make in mid-limit.
The following IMO *are* possible reasons to move up from low-limit:
1. The rake is too high. You had better have some real numbers to back this up. You'll need to keep track the rake you pay individually per hour, and the rake your table pays per hour. Compare these with your long term hourly win rate.
I personally have only found two low-limit games where I believed the rake to be so high that it was close to being unbeatable. (Ontario 2-5 which is 10% max $5, and Turning Stone 1-3 which is $3 on pots over $10.)
2. The stakes of the low-limit game are too low for your bankroll and you are not playing optimally due to boredom or indifference to the outcome.
3. You're a long term-winning player at low-limit and believe you could also do well in higher limits.
ScottyZ
I personally find that the rakes online create far too high a profit margin for the site operators for the service.
Relative to the site's costs, maybe. But when you flat-out compare it to the rake you pay at a B&M low-limit game, online poker is the best choice.
Regards,
all_aces
Say you have pocket aces. At 2/5 the betting is much more likely to be raised (and even capped) preflop, when you are more than happy to pour as much money as you can into the pot. Typically you will have more people in the pot, and as a result will get your aces cracked more often. When you win you will win BIG though in this situation.
This isn't a bad thing... it's exactly where the profit is in 2/5, but it just means that in the short run the money swings in BB/hr can be greater. Over the long run I am certain that I would make more BB/hour at 2/5. I do see a lot of people at the lowest limit lose with premium hand, go on tilt and then lose a bunch more because "this is bingo... no one can beat this game".
All of these statements seem to draw on the fact that your opponents are generally more skilled at higher limits than lower limits.
Your results may be more consistent, or as Iron puts it, lower variance at the higher limits.
Unless you have a short bankroll, or are trying to meet some kind of minimum play requirement, I can't really see how lower varaince helps you in cash games. You seem to be willing to trade EV (since you'd generally be going up against more skilled players) for lowering your variance.
If the claim is that you would somehow magically shift into playing better yourself if you played at a higher limit, you should examine why this is. Specifically, why you think you are not performing well at low-limit, and why you might do better at high limit.
Are you unintersted in the low stakes? Do you "follow the crowd" and play like everyone else is playing? Do you see more flops in low-limit because you believe you can outplay your opponents on later streets? Are you often put on tilt by your opponents' chasing? Is the rake per hour too high?
Ultimately and *generally*, good players' long term results will get worse, not better, in terms of BB/hour as they move up in limits (unless the effect of the decrease in rake/time charge has a significant effect, which it certainly can). This is simply due to game selection/opponent selection. It would be an extreme rarity to find a player who can't beat a typical low-limit game (when putting in a genuine effort to play well in low-limit), and that *can* beat a typical higher limit game.
These games are obviously different, and require different styles of play. In my experience, the style of play you need to use to beat a low-limit game is much much much simpler than the style of play you need to use to beat a higher limit game.
ScottyZ
I think that the variance is similar at high and low limits, but for different reasons.
I don't know if people consider 15/30 to be 'high' limit. Personally, I consider it to be 'higher' limit, as in, higher than 10/20, 5/10, etc... My experience in the 15/30 games at Stars (which are very similar to the 20/40 Ontario casino games) is that people put you to the test more often. You'll find that many players are capable of being just as aggressive with second pair as they are with the nuts, so trying to put people on hands and trying to determine where you're at relative to others is difficult, but fun in a challenging sort of way.
For this reason, as Scotty has alluded to, variance in higher-limit games can be just as volatile as it is in low-limit games. You will be put to the test, and so you must also put your opponents to the test. Re-re-stealing when it's heads-up can get expensive, but it's necessary if you want to do more than just break even.
An example (one of many) of being 'put to the test':
Last night 15/30, I'm BB with 3h5h, a real monster of a hand.
Button raises, SB calls, and I call. (I like to play a lot of hands, in general, but that's just me.)
Flop: Ac 6c 4s. SB and me check, button bets, we both call.
Turn: 2c. SB checks, I bet, button raises, SB folds, I call.
River: Tc. I check, button bets, I call.
The button had red pocket queens, and my straight was good. I'm not really looking for comments on my play--I know it probably wasn't great--but I just mention that hand as an example of what players at higher limits are capable of. Not me, him. Players in lower limits are often guilty of over-valuing their hands, and players at higher limits often try to bully their opponents out of pots. So, the reasons are different, but the result is the same: big pots, tough decisions, swings, variance, etc...
I apologize if this post made no sense. It makes sense in my head, but I'm still reeling from my bubble finish last night, and as such I'm pretty much useless today.
Just my 2 cents....
Regards,
all_aces