General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I always hear people saying that "In the micro-stakes people play like..." and "In the small-stakes people play like..." "In the mid-stakes..." etc. But is it really more accurate to say that the MAJORITY of people play like that in each stake? Like on any given night at any level can't a table be playing like they play at a different stake? Or within a table you can have a couple people who play like small stakes, a couple others who play like micro, etc? 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?

It's not the stake it's the players. There just happens to be more good players as you move up, so your strategy is not the same.

For instance, in micro's you make your money by value betting and not paying off. Well as you move up you find that less people are paying off to your value bets so bluffing becomes a bigger part of your game.

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

But isn't every stake to a certain point a mixed bag? So shouldn't EVERY player learn EVERY stake?

Of course, this would be ideal. However, generally speaking, beginning players playing micro/small stakes will most likely find it extremely overwhelming to absorb all of the concepts necessary to beat the mid stakes games and damn near impossible to understand everything they need to know to beat the high stakes simultaneously. This is one of the main reasons why the best players in the world are often found playing at the highest stakes. It is very unlikely to find anyone who truly understands how to beat mid/high stakes playing micro/small stakes as their regular game.

I always hear people saying that "In the micro-stakes people play like..." and "In the small-stakes people play like..." "In the mid-stakes..." etc. But is it really more accurate to say that the MAJORITY of people play like that in each stake?

Stereotyping is not meant to be completely inclusive and so it is assumed you will infer that there will be outliers. Also its not that the majority of players at a stake play a certain way, but that the mix of players results in the tables playing a certain way. For example on the merge network the micro stakes PLO have a combination of TAG nits and loose passive fish which results in few three bet pots and tight flop stack off ranges. On the cake network at the same stakes I feel there are way more maniacs and LAGs mixed in which makes the games play much faster.

But is it really more accurate to say that the MAJORITY of people play like that in each stake?

Nobody has ever claimed that every single player at a certain limit plays exactly the same.
People make generalizations which are fairly accurate for a limit as a whole, but you obviously need into account the specific players at your table.

I always hear people saying that "In the micro-stakes people play like..." and "In the small-stakes people play like..." "In the mid-stakes..." etc. But is it really more accurate to say that the MAJORITY of people play like that in each stake? Like on any given night at any level can't a table be playing like they play at a different stake? Or within a table you can have a couple people who play like small stakes, a couple others who play like micro, etc? 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?

semantics ftw though i find your thoughts very insightful

I just want to say that it makes me very happy that you spelled losing correctly.

LOL @ Techmo; how long has it been since I've seen the grammar police? too long.

As for OP: What?

I think I get what you're saying. Poker is about players and adjustments, and it doesn't matter what the stakes are. However, the players and their complexity changes drastically as you move up. Additionally, there are rarely, if ever, players that are really complex in the micros. You just won't find the same level of deep thinking in a micro player that you'll find playing a HSNL winner. In that sense, there will be things that will not apply at lower stakes (but, much of it can be applied if you understand all of the reasoning... and beginning players aren't likely to understand all the reasoning)

Additionally, there are rarely, if ever, players that are really complex in the micros. You just won't find the same level of deep thinking in a micro player that you'll find playing a HSNL winner. In that sense, there will be things that will not apply at lower stakes (but, much of it can be applied if you understand all of the reasoning... and beginning players aren't likely to understand all the reasoning)

This is very ironic given the 10nl JJ thread

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?

Player A

Who is gonna hand this table a bigger beat down player A or B?

I don't understand this question

Learn to profile your opponents and exploit there weaknesses. Regs get better as you move up, no other play type really matters you should be able to beat them the same way because they have the same leaks, they will just cost them more at higher stakes.

Player A

+1 AINEC

no other play type really matters you should be able to beat them the same way because they have the same leaks, they will just cost them more at higher stakes.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true, even fish get better at higher stakes, I've noticed they become more aggressive the higher you're playing and some have at least some clue of what they're doing.

Also a lot of 'fish' on higher stakes are usually just microstakes players on tilt sitting with their whole roll and what not.