General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Player A is going to do better for sure.

Player A, not close. The problem is you said world-class high stakes player. That's not many people. If you'd said Player A was a certain type of online-only midstakes reg and Player B bumhunted around the smaller sites @ the micros and played a lot of live then it might be different.

Player A= Better player= adjusts to villains and table better= wins more money

Player A, not close. The problem is you said world-class high stakes player. That's not many people. If you'd said Player A was a certain type of online-only midstakes reg and Player B bumhunted around the smaller sites @ the micros and played a lot of live then it might be different.

I don't think this will make a difference either. First thing winning online players should learn is how to beat bad players. Pretty hard to move up to midstakes if someone doesn't know how to max their EV vs fish and control FPS.

I suppose the moral of the story is learn how to beat different types of players and why it works. Hope that helps.

+1

I don't think this will make a difference either. First thing winning online players should learn is how to beat bad players. Pretty hard to move up to midstakes if someone doesn't know how to max their EV vs fish and control FPS.

You don't know any online crushers who didn't adapt well to live the first time they played it?

You don't know any online crushers who didn't adapt well to live the first time they played it?

You didn't say first time playing live

The reason I'm asking is because it seems to me that people always say "Don't study NL200 if you play NL50, or vice versa." But isn't every stake to a certain point a mixed bag? So shouldn't EVERY player learn EVERY stake?

You shouldn't really be thinking of it as "learning a stake." You don't really learn a stake, so much as learn general stereotypes about how people play at each stake, and what strategies/adjustments are used to exploit that information.

Should every player be learning how to play versus all types of players, at all stakes? Yes, absolutely, that is a fundamental part of poker strategy and poker skill.

However, learning that isn't as simple as loading up a video of 200NL. These videos can only tell you so much, and how you progress as a poker player is by taking what you learn from the video and then APPLYING it at the tables, and then finding out what works yourself based off a large sample of results and experience.

That's why you shouldn't really 'study' 200NL while you play 50NL, because playing is an integral part of studying. If there are a wide range of players at 50NL, you shouldn't be looking through videos from different stakes to work out how to beat them; you should do it using the tools you've been given and your own hand histories - you should play them.

yes obviously on some 1/2nl tables, it will be tougher than a 3/6nl table. Its just a generalization. People play differently in general at micros compared with medium stakes in a number of different ways so you can make that distinction. It's not just the fish that play differently at each limit but the regs will play a certain way because of the fish as well.

All these replies are very interesting, interesting how the dynamics of the mixture of player types dictates the way a table plays, i am such a rookie, so much great stuff to learn. Ok, let me ask a question to see if I understand something, Suppose a bunch of guys went to the casino who know almost nothing about hold'em, but they were all filthy rich and they filled up over half of a high stakes table (Player A is a world class high stakes player who's table just got overrun, player B is just a good solid player who spends all his time beating up on the micros but for one night he's just giving high stakes a try, and the rest of the players are the rich maniac suckers). Now, Player A simply has WAY more raw poker talent than player B, BUT the micros/suckers is player B's forte and player A never plays there. Who is gonna hand this table a bigger beat down player A or B?

I think a better example would be if you were to put a 5/10nl regular in a 1/2nl game, who would do better, the reg at 1/2nl or the higher stake reg. I think in the short term you'd have to pick the low limit reg for sure since he knows how the other players typically play and has an optimalized play style for that but the higher reg has to play more of a solid ABC game until he learns how ppl are playing... as the higher stake reg learns the tendencies of the other players, he is going to be attaining a larger win rate than the lower stake reg in the long run since he likely understands theories and concepts a lot better

I'm glad that the replies were Player A. I wasn't sure which player people would say. I've know a few people who were said to be 'Great' at poker and they would get pissed off at people who made 'Stupid' plays, flip out, "How The Hell Do You Call That Shit!" And these guys would tell me "You gotta play at higher stakes where people aren't idiots and they respect your moves." So I wasn't sure if these guys were 'Suited' for higher stakes and certain players were 'Suited' for lower stakes. Thanks for replies, these guys clearly are not great, well maybe to the untrained eye

I'm glad that the replies were Player A. I wasn't sure which player people would say. I've know a few people who were said to be 'Great' at poker and they would get pissed off at people who made 'Stupid' plays, flip out, "How The Hell Do You Call That Shit!" And these guys would tell me "You gotta play at higher stakes where people aren't idiots and they respect your moves." So I wasn't sure if these guys were 'Suited' for higher stakes and certain players were 'Suited' for lower stakes. Thanks for replies, these guys clearly are not great, well maybe to the untrained eye

Those players are terrible themselves. There's a reason why "move to to where they respect your raises" has been a joke since I've started playing poker seriously.