General Impressions on 25NL and the Fish to Rock Ratio

Just wondering what you guys thought of this level. If bankroll wasn't an issue to consider (I have a money tree in the back yard...), would this be the best place to gain alot of experience?

I've heard that players at this level are often looser and I've also heard (from some poker book I can't recall) that players at this level tend to be tight since they may be working with a depleted bankroll- I'm sure it's just a combination-thoughts?

Would you say that there is a greater fish to rock ratio for each successive leve? Obviously, having alot of fish to exploit at a table is advantageous but after seeing some of the crap that they play, I often find myself wishing for more players that play the "right" way (as if I had a grasp of that). It almost seems like you need a couple of rocks at the table to balance things a bit. At a six player table, a 3:2 ratio seems cool-No?

Quote:

---

I often find myself wishing for more players that play the "right" way (as if I had a grasp of that). It almost seems like you need a couple of rocks at the table to balance things a bit.

---

A wize man on this site once said to me " if you can't beat the fish at $10NL, grandmas, underagers, oldmen, welfare moms and outright beginners what makes you think you can beat better players at the higher levels". Remember, as they start to "respect" your bluffs, raises and pot sized bets so do you. Instead of 8/10 fish at the table, ther will be3/10. Can you find them at the table, before losing your stack? If ya can't beat the lower levels, how can ya beat the higher levels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Remember, as they start to "respect" your bluffs, raises and pot sized bets so do you.

---

Even more importantly.
As they start to respect your bluffs, raises and pot sized bets they start to fold A2o on an A64 flop. This really begins to hurt your AK profits after a while.

The thing to watch at 25NL is the one or two TAGGs at the table trying to grind out a living. Mostly you'll have a relatively soft table. Mostly there will be a lot of passive calling stations just waiting to be exploited. Mostly you'll be OK if you just play decent ABC poker...mostly.

However; you have to be able to spot those occasions where you're playing at the same table with someone else doing the same thing. The general rule is one person at the table as good or better than you are is OK, 2 is borderline and if there are 3 then...well glub, glub, you just became a fish. In that case the only reason you shouldn't switch tables is if you have an ATM machine just giving the money away. Then it's maybe worth the risk.

In short 25NL is great to play at to grind your way up, the action should be decent, you shouldn't run into too many tables where you're simply outclassed. Obvioulsy, 10NL is going to be even better. As far as anything higher than 25...I don't know.

A rock is not the opposite of a fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

A rock is not the opposite of a fish.

---

I agree.

Secular,

It's kind of hard to classify players as a certain type of player. When I think of a fish, I think about the player that calls calls calls, and when I think of a rock, I think of a super exploitable player that folds way too much and check/raises their sets. Both are obviously bad and very exploitable, although I've always said it's always easier to exploit someone who calls too much then it is to exploit someone who folds too much.

In general though, the play at these levels is pretty weak and is definately a good place to start getting some experience. I don't know that you'll ever find a truly 'tough' NL25 table, ever.

I find it happens shorthanded sometimes. I consider myself (on a good day - haven't had one of those for a while) to be in the top 10% or so of 25NL players, but there are days when I'm up against multiple proper Taggs or strong Laggs at 6max and know that really, my game isn't likely to help me overcome their defenses. But I almost never find myself on a full ring table that I can't at least keep pace with - the only times it happens is because I'm to the right of one or more players I know are very strong.

People bitch about how people call all the time at the lower limits. Its absurd.

At 25NL and 50NL, it was not uncommon for me to stack people with top pair. At higher limits, if you are playing a huge pot with top pair, you are losing 90% of the time. This is pretty tough to adjust to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

A rock is not the opposite of a fish.

---

I agree.

---

My mistake; I’m still trying to get the poker lingo straight. I realize what a fish is but I was certainly incorrect about the definition of a rock. I mistook a rock for being someone that is a very “solid” player; a player that plays tight and very aggressive (Brunson’s definition of a good/solid player). Rock….Solid…Solid….Rock-I ASSumed they were the same. Thank you for the clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

People bitch about how people call all the time at the lower limits. Its absurd.

At 25NL and 50NL, it was not uncommon for me to stack people with top pair. At higher limits, if you are playing a huge pot with top pair, you are losing 90% of the time. This is pretty tough to adjust to.

---

Tell me about it. I’d say I failed miserably to adjust to 100NL . My BB/100 for 50NL was between 6 and 7 while my BB/100 for 100NL was -13.

Thanks for the insight guys. My main concern was that spending alot of time at 25NL would be a counterproductive exercise. Now, even though I'm decent at 50NL, I will attempt to "master" 25NL before I move up.

One other question: biondino, you mentioned a difference in play between 6max and full ring. Should a beginner start out in full ring before playing 6max? Or is this just a personal preference?

Start in FR when you first move up to get used to the stakes. Once you're comfortable then you can start trying out 6max.