The best player in the world
I think there was a Cardplayer article about this, but I'm going to mention it, just to bring up a point.
Which is a better player? One who plays with the best players in the world and has a smaller edge, or one who plays against weaker opponents who has a higher edge and expected value?
The point I want to bring up is about game selection. When I was playing $10-$20 in Chicago, I was told that I should move up to the $20-$40 game because I was capable of beating it. While this may be true, I, for the most part, stuck to the $10-$20, and killed it, instead of making a small profit (big bet wise) in the $20-$40. When I was contemplating whether or not to play the $20 game, I looked at my records, and found that I was beating the $10 game for a little more than 2 bets an hour. And looking at $20 records, I was beating it for about 1 bet and hour. While money-wise, the profit is close to the same, I found that playing the $10 game was much easier on my mind-set (I was more comfortable with the limit), and required much less thinking, as the $20 players were more advanced (for the most part).
Last night, I was playing in a great $10-$20 game at the Mirage, and decided to quit because I wasn't as concentrated on the game because I was watching the Lebron/Kobe matchup on TV. So I went home to watch the rest of the game. I then went to the Wynn to finish up the night at the $8-$16 or $15-$30 game. When I got there the $8 game was so tight, 4 out of 5 hands were chopped. After dumping a hundred, I went to the $15 game, looking for looser action. It just wasn't there, I didn't even post to get in before I called the Mirage looking to get back into the $10 game. Sure enough, the game was still going good, so I went back and beat it for another few hundred. After thinking about it, I think that the $4-$8 game at the Wynn had an equal of or maybe an even better money expectation than the $8 game. My point is finding the best game to play in, regardless of limit, is probably the most important rule of thumb to go by when deciding what to play. Sure, the low limit games will almost always be a better game to play, but sometimes it's vice-versa like the $15-$30 at Bellagio when compared to the $8-$16 game there. So my suggestion is analyze a game and find where your best edge is, and go to that game. Whether the game is bigger or smaller.
On an ending note, I realize that going to a tougher game that you can slightly beat has its up-side, and you can learn a thing or two, but if you are looking to win the next session, find the edge, and do your thing. There is no need to prove yourself to anyone and show that you can beat a tougher game, especially if a bunch of donkeys are giving their money away at the next table over.
Which is a better player? One who plays with the best players in the world and has a smaller edge, or one who plays against weaker opponents who has a higher edge and expected value?
The point I want to bring up is about game selection. When I was playing $10-$20 in Chicago, I was told that I should move up to the $20-$40 game because I was capable of beating it. While this may be true, I, for the most part, stuck to the $10-$20, and killed it, instead of making a small profit (big bet wise) in the $20-$40. When I was contemplating whether or not to play the $20 game, I looked at my records, and found that I was beating the $10 game for a little more than 2 bets an hour. And looking at $20 records, I was beating it for about 1 bet and hour. While money-wise, the profit is close to the same, I found that playing the $10 game was much easier on my mind-set (I was more comfortable with the limit), and required much less thinking, as the $20 players were more advanced (for the most part).
Last night, I was playing in a great $10-$20 game at the Mirage, and decided to quit because I wasn't as concentrated on the game because I was watching the Lebron/Kobe matchup on TV. So I went home to watch the rest of the game. I then went to the Wynn to finish up the night at the $8-$16 or $15-$30 game. When I got there the $8 game was so tight, 4 out of 5 hands were chopped. After dumping a hundred, I went to the $15 game, looking for looser action. It just wasn't there, I didn't even post to get in before I called the Mirage looking to get back into the $10 game. Sure enough, the game was still going good, so I went back and beat it for another few hundred. After thinking about it, I think that the $4-$8 game at the Wynn had an equal of or maybe an even better money expectation than the $8 game. My point is finding the best game to play in, regardless of limit, is probably the most important rule of thumb to go by when deciding what to play. Sure, the low limit games will almost always be a better game to play, but sometimes it's vice-versa like the $15-$30 at Bellagio when compared to the $8-$16 game there. So my suggestion is analyze a game and find where your best edge is, and go to that game. Whether the game is bigger or smaller.
On an ending note, I realize that going to a tougher game that you can slightly beat has its up-side, and you can learn a thing or two, but if you are looking to win the next session, find the edge, and do your thing. There is no need to prove yourself to anyone and show that you can beat a tougher game, especially if a bunch of donkeys are giving their money away at the next table over.
