Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,518
|
|
I am so f'n cynical of stake difference generalizations, and fully believe that 90%+ of generalizations people make about a stake are based in limited experience.
I don't believe that 20k, or even 40k hands is nearly a large enough sample for most people to come up with accurate generalizations about a limit. There's too much variability in the game. The tables you happen to find yourself on, the regs you happen to be facing more, the types of fish you run into more than others could be quite varied between two players playing the same limit, even over what some would consider a 'large' sample. All the time I see people saying things like "zomg 25NL was so nitty", only to hear someone else say the complete opposite thing
I also don't think learning about limit characteristics is even useful. I see players trying to use some "stake-based read" to justify some play and I just facepalm.
I used to start those "I'm moving up, what should I expect" threads when first rising the ranks, and if anything -- they did me more harm than good. The biggest, and most common mistake people make when moving up is to adjust their game to some perceived difference with the next limit and it pretty much always results in them playing bad & getting smacked back down.
Don't change a fucking thing when moving up. Poker is a game of adjusting to specific players, regardless of stake. Just keep doing that no matter how big the money is and you'll be fine.
|