400nl+ Question

[Jager]

What are the main differences I can reasonably expect when I move up from 200nl on Stars??

Sorry about the low content...

[IowaSkinsFan]

From my experience playing some 400nl...
1. table selection is a lot worse, you pretty much have to play at some tables with 2-3 regs.
2. There are still bad regs.
3. There are better thinking regs who will probably pwn you initially until you figure out how to play the game unlike how you played it at 200nl.

But obviously other than that idk what else to say.

[sauce123]

1. ur lines need to make sense
2. ppl will 3bet and squeeze about 300% more than 200nl and it will annoy and confuse u at first. (they probably do it more than is even optimal)
3. less fish, less nitty regs, game selection may be important depending on ur winrate at lower stakes.

Again, Im more than happy to comment on any of the 400nl regs I have played with so aim me or pm me or somethin.

[Renton]

i found teh 2/4 stars game to be significanly easier than 1/2

[Jager]

i found teh 2/4 stars game to be significanly easier than 1/2

Any points as to why that you would care to elaborate on??

[Renton]

people are more aware than at 1/2, but only aware enough to be dangerous to them selves.

e.g. they run timeless tag lines that are obvious, which enable you to call/fold or bluff appropriately.


Plus they always give me less credit than they should.

[sauce123]

thats not true at all 2/4 is much, much harder

[Alexos]

I played a full session at 2/4 today at Stars, and I must say the games are tough as hell. I usually play on FT and idk it just seems like the players are much better on Stars. The squeezes were meh, same like FT, but one thing I noticed was the LAGGs that float you every single hand, something I never saw at Tilt.

Dunno, maybe it was because I know none of the regs there, and my tables were filled with regs, but in general it seems way tougher.

On the other hand 200nl on Stars is fishier imo