Printable View
I see a lot of replies to hh's that say stuff like "well at those stakes..." Should stakes play a big role in deciding what action to take in a hand? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm tempted to just start posting hh's with generic stacks and bet sizes in relation to BB's just to avoid any bias about the hand taking place at a certain stake level. Am I just being weird here or no?
Stakes matter.
10NL vs 1000NL matters a little bit.
Mainly the color of the chips.
size deffinately matters
There are fish and sharks at every level. Shouldn't hand analysis be opponent-dependent? And when reads are absent shouldn't it tend towards general +EV lines?
Pretty much. There's a good argument though that lower stakes have more fish. Therefore, I think +EV lines may be different at 25nl compared to 2000nl. It's always better for advice to be op dependent and not stake dependent though.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
Ya this is true, but I think a lot of times people don't give lower stakes players enough credit. They remember a bunch of the goofy hands they were involved in or have seen, but overall I think we should generally give players credit for trying to play "good" poker until proven otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
If they're playing micro stakes then they haven't proved otherwise IMO.
Opponents matter. Stakes give a general indication of opponents.
Site would matter as well, as would the entire hand history you have on that opponent, but you have to draw the line on information somewhere.
It matters. If they're playing good poker, they won't be at micro-stakes for long.
I think that most players at micro-stakes are incredibly bad, and therefore it's in my best interest to assume so until proven otherwise.
I think this is especially important preflop. When you have JJ and you've seen the typical three-bet/call pushes with hands like KJ and 33 preflop, you can safely play your jacks to any of his resistance and come out way ahead in the long run.
Here's a good example of standard micro-play (this hand was done preflop):
http://poker.sejje.net/four-way.jpg
I think some things are more common at lower stakes, like valuing one pair too much, or generally more call stations/maniacs...but people probably overemphasize it like you were saying based on a few memories or groiup-think.
Right so you change your play because he "proved otherwise." That's what I was saying. But you don't just play your JJ like the nuts at microstakes cuz you remember a few wild donks here and there that go crazy with KJ or 33.Quote:
Originally Posted by sejje
ATo/KQo/AKo/AA all in preflop is a bit rare......wow......
stakes do matter.I think AA on NL25 vs a maniac is a lot better then at NL2000 vs a solid TAG...............
what you just said has nothing to do with stakes. it has everything to do with being against a maniac or a tag which means it is opponent-dependent not stake-dependent.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Yes, but some "good, thinking" TAG's at 10NL, when faced with a triple barrel for all their chips, may decide "ah, screw it" and just call anyway with their overpair. At 2000NL, they are either astutely folding, or scared shitless of the big bets (this is especially true of those who "take shots", and there are NONE of these players at microstakes).Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
I still don't understand why it's important to say what stakes you are playing or to ask a poster what stakes they're at before giving hand advice.
If everybody included good reads with their posts then it wouldnt be needed, but browse over the hand histories posted here. The majority of posters dont use a converter, let alone include reads or even stats for that matter. I a poster would typer a few sentences about the villain in the hand then it wouldnt make a huge different in the stakes. However, if a player is unknown we can make assumptions based on the stakes. I will give an unknown player at 400nl more credit than one at 5nl, and we should do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
I think the best solution to this would be to make the converter put the stakes in the title but then convert bets and stacks to BBs, that would make them easier to read and take out some of the bias, but the stakes do still need to be there when reads arent posted which is the majority of the time.
Do some people change their answers based on stakes more often than they should? Yes, go over to 2+2s HSNL forum and find a hand from somebody like Samoleous or against Mahatma, change the stakes to $25nl and watch yourself get ridiculed for the play even if you post the same reads. Thats an extreme example though and not everybody will do that and most of the posters will do their best to give an unbiased but INFORMED opinion, they cannot do that without all the information about the hand.
if you won a million tomorrow, would you sit right down at the 10/20 game on PS?
I think the biggest difference is in postflop play. Where it can be correct to make a move at a higher stake because of FE, that same move is pointless at microstakes because people just don't fold as often there. So while mathematically the correct play at $10 should be the correct play at $200, in practice the levels really play differently and this should be taken into account.
I'd be rocking 25/50 :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
Stakes do matter, people care about losing $25 more than $2. Site and time of day matters to, certain times at Stars certain limits no one is all in pre-flop without AA/KK!
Ah yes I do agree with the FE point. Good one. And I don't understand the point of the question about sitting at PS 10/20.Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsman1992
Not sure why this is confusing...
People take fewer risks when there is more money involved. :)
So as the stakes get higher, even complete poker morons play just a little tighter.
This effect increases with the stakes...
Is this an absolute... NO, nothing is. Everything is a general tendency, and we play accordingly.
Even a complete maniac with 15000 hands of seeing 50% of flops and raising every turn with AIR will occasionally get AA and screw you , but you still call them down with KK when you get it because they're MANIACS who generally play anything.
At lower limits, I don't change my starting hands, but I play TPTK much more confidently because so many fish at that level don't know what a Kicker is... They play Ax, Kx, Qx like the nuts... On the same token, I will give them MUCH more credit for an overpair on a K high board with my QQ because they will call with Kx off to a 3x bb bet with startling regularity...
It changes the way you play. If not, that might be a leak.
BTW, I play mostly micro SNGs , because I am just figuring all this stuff out. I can tell the difference between $1 and $5 tables. Heck, 2 tabling one of each, you can see how much faster people are donking out at the lower stake.
the answer to this is very simple.
Yes.
the reason: players generally have different capabilities at different stakes. If i sat at 25nl and said there was a semi-decent player behind me, it would be a lot different from a semi-decent player sat behind me at 400nl.
A semi-decent player at 25nl is probably playing his cards ok, but not a lot more. A semi-decent 400nl player can play his cards and my expected range well too.
Higher stakes are generally more aggressive pre-flop and have more FE post-flop. I think these 2 ideas alone warrant knowing what the stakes are so I've changed my mind. Also, the unknowns at higher stakes probably play differently from the unknowns at 25NL. I still think a lot of people don't give low-stakes players enough credit and exaggerate a bit but oh well.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by drmcboy
Da nuts, warming the hearts of sharks everywhere.