Game selection vs. Variance
Posted by KillaKam
Posted by
KillaKam
posted in
Gen. Poker
Game selection vs. Variance
"I couldn't beat 25 nl over the course of a good sample size, but I beefed up my bankroll and have been crushing 100 nl" a statement like this or something similar is something I have heard in the past from other players and recently from a friend who I have known to be a winning live player over the course of the last several years. Is there anything to this or is this just a case of short term variance? Is there a fundamental difference in strategy and theory as to why a "winning players" strategy could be effective at a game like 100 nl and not transfer to 25 nl? Shouldn't over a large sample size the 25 nl game be "softer" and lead to higher profitability in relation to bb?
Loading 6 Comments...
Sounds like he moved up where they respect his raises
"This man couldn't beat 25nl, but then he discovered this one funny little secret and now he crushes high stakes. Poker players HATE him!"
Players who "play their style" may do better in certain games than in others. Assuming rake is similar, if you struggle to beat lower games, you are doing something wrong also in the higher ones. At the very least, you are not adapting enough to your opponents.
Personal style has no use in poker. A maximally exploitative player has no style, he always adapts perfectly. A perfect GTO player has no style either, he follows the rules of a perfectly unexploitable strategy.
Very zen, ZenFish. Play like water!
Yes. Play like water.
Probably just short term variance.He could have ran really bad on 25nl and ran really good on 100nl.Theres a large gap in quality of play between the two stakes, so if he played anything over 100k hands of 25nl and couldnt beat it it`s more likely the second one.
Be the first to add a comment