question for 400nl+ regs - Page 2

Half of the mid stakes regs have been around forever. Most have been living poker day by day for years. So by default, mid-stakes regs would have deeper understanding of the game(in they're own ways)

So I guess biggest difference would be the bankroll. Most of the regs whos been around for awhile easily have 500k+ to their name where else low-stakes grinders would have just enough bankroll to grind the stakes they play and some living expense.

from what I have seen the higher you get the better regs understand dynamics and can adjust better

400nl+ people think less about dumb shit like this

100nl people love thinking about stuff like this.

On March 06 2010 11:11 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 11:09 animaniacs wrote: might want to read my post byrnesam my mistake 400nl reg will be 400% better than a 100nl reg 600nl reg will be 600% better than a 100nl reg

nono, it's 300% and 500% increases respectively! ^__^

a lot of people are treating this like i asked an open "whats the difference between smallstakes and midstakes regs" and that's really not what i wanted, i wanted it to be defined in the terms of my op. oh well.

thanks to dusty and andrew for at least giving a serious answer.

and nolan if you think this is stupid you're free to gtfo of my thread.

On March 06 2010 14:58 animaniacs wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 13:05 gawdawaful wrote: How would you even come about quantifying something like that. using the criteria in my original post? ffs   Plus some 100NL regs might be ridiculously good at not tilting while understanding very little fundamentals of the game and cannot hand read even if one card is face up while a 600NL reg can soulread you while having absolutely zero self control/discipline yes i get it different people have different strengths and weaknesses. what if there's a 400nl reg who value bets super good but tilts a lot, does that mean phil galfond's (and twisted's) generalization about 400nl players not value-betting as well as 5knl players is irrelavent?

You still dont get it. How do you measure how much better player A is at value betting vs player B in a % ratio? I'm assuming you're a 100NL/200NL player hence why you ask for 400+, so humour me, how much better in a % measurement, is 100NL regs better at valuebetting than 50NL, and 25NL regs, and how you come about this %?

And their generalization isn't irrelevant, its a stepwise scale considering 5k NL players are much more adapt at recognizing when to cbet than a 400NL player, whereas a 400NL player will be much more adept than a 100NL player and so forth (at least, logistically speaking)

On March 06 2010 17:09 gawdawaful wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 14:58 animaniacs wrote:   On March 06 2010 13:05 gawdawaful wrote: How would you even come about quantifying something like that. using the criteria in my original post? ffs   Plus some 100NL regs might be ridiculously good at not tilting while understanding very little fundamentals of the game and cannot hand read even if one card is face up while a 600NL reg can soulread you while having absolutely zero self control/discipline yes i get it different people have different strengths and weaknesses. what if there's a 400nl reg who value bets super good but tilts a lot, does that mean phil galfond's (and twisted's) generalization about 400nl players not value-betting as well as 5knl players is irrelavent? You still dont get it. How do you measure how much better player A is at value betting vs player B in a % ratio? I'm assuming you're a 100NL/200NL player hence why you ask for 400+, so humour me, how much better in a % measurement, is 100NL regs better at valuebetting than 50NL, and 25NL regs, and how you come about this %? And their generalization isn't irrelevant, its a stepwise scale considering 5k NL players are much more adapt at recognizing when to cbet than a 400NL player, whereas a 400NL player will be much more adept than a 100NL player and so forth (at least, logistically speaking)

obviously there's not a method to come up with a correct %, i'm just asking people to guesstimate.

and i don't mean like saying player A is X% better than player B at value-betting or whatever. i mean saying what percentage value-betting would account for if you made an (approximate) pie graph of the the 3 criteria i listed as to why midstakes regs are better than smallstakes regs.

in other words i'm not asking "how much better is player A than player B at doing X". i'm asking "if you take criteria X Y and Z, how do they compare to each other in terms of comprising the gap between player A and player B".

maybe i didn't phrase it very well and there was some misunderstanding, i'll re-check my op.

OP why are u asking about it? u r never gonna make it that far.

imo

hahah

On March 06 2010 17:35 bongky wrote: OP why are u asking about it? u r never gonna make it that far. imo

why does that matter?

nolan

this thread is so bad that its awesome

On March 06 2010 16:37 nolan wrote: 400nl+ people think less about dumb shit like this 100nl people love thinking about stuff like this.

qft

Orignial poster ur wasting ur time man seriously none of this matters

On March 06 2010 17:59 DooMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 16:37 nolan wrote: 400nl+ people think less about dumb shit like this 100nl people love thinking about stuff like this. qft Orignial poster ur wasting ur time man seriously none of this matters

it only matters to the extent that i'm curious about it. but i can see it's probably a lost cause getting any more real answers.

On March 06 2010 17:51 Minsk wrote: this thread is so bad that its awesome

rofl exactly what i thought

OP, you made a speculative thread asking for people to basically just hypothesize/generalize a bunch of bullshit about something that is in NO way quantifiable. It's like asking what's the difference between people who make $100k a year and those who make $50k a year. Yes, you could make some generalizations (those who make more are better educated, come from xyz background) but if you actually believed or did anything more with those generalizations beyond dismissing them immediately, you'd be a fool.

What's worse it that you're trying to defend it by saying it's a "serious question." It's impossible to quantify because you're thinking from a specific perspective which says that everyone starts from small stakes and works their way up. If this were true, maybe some generalizations would be possible, but just as with my income example, that's completely false in poker. People play at different stakes for a trillion different reasons, the smallest of which is due to skill and steady progress.

EDIT: Probably a better way to approach this is: what do you think are the major leaks that keep people from moving into higher midstakes or something like that.

On March 06 2010 11:59 rozyboy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 06 2010 11:04 byrnesam wrote: 400nl reg will be 4x better than a 100nl reg 600nl reg will be 6x better than a 100nl reg i thought it was: 400nl reg will run 4x better than a 100nl reg 600nl reg will run 6x better than a 100nl reg

flame on

it's hard not to suck.

On March 06 2010 17:35 bongky wrote: OP why are u asking about it? u r never gonna make it that far. imo

LOL sad but true for most inc myself haha