Would you be better off dropping down stakes?
A thought-provoking tweet this week from Aaron Barone of 888poker (Great guy to follow, an online crusher and very funny). He suggested that most players would make more money if they dropped down in stakes where they have a higher earn rate.
This would also mean fewer swings and presumably a more stress-free experience:
I’m enjoying the ‘unpopular poker opinion’ takes, so I thought I’d give it a try:
Despite the overwhelming desire to ‘move up to where people respect your raises,’ 99.9% of tournament players would make more money in poker if they moved down in stakes.
You might read this and…
— Aaron Barone (@abarone68) September 4, 2024
My instincts are that he is correct too. I have written a lot about variance this year and came to similar conclusions. I also have struggled to move up stakes myself, mostly because I am a bankroll nit and in the UK it’s quite hard to play higher than I currently am online because of KYC reasons, but also because I think I am more profitable at lower stakes.
What better way to investigate this idea further than by looking at the man himself? This is from Barone’s SharkScope (Just on PokerStars where there is a large sample of games), and I have filtered for MTTs under $25, MTTs between $26-$60, and MTTs between $61-$220.
As you can see he is profitable in all three and the higher the stake, the higher his average profit. Barone is, therefore, better off playing at higher stakes.
He is, however, much more profitable in terms of ROI the lower you go. His ROI above $60 is 2.1%, it’s 4.8% in our midstakes sample, it’s 9.9% in his small stakes sample. Barone has a similar sample in his lower-stakes games and his mid-stakes games. Let’s look at the graph for the low stakes:
And now the mid stakes:
Finally, not as big a sample, but still a huge sample, for the higher stakes:
What do you notice? It’s a straight line upward for the lower-stakes games. It’s not as easy going for the mid-stakes. As for the higher stakes, there are long periods of losing and break-even stretches. There was a two-year and a four-year losing stretch at the highest stake games, the worst part of the mid-stakes was a breakeven year, and every year at low stakes was profitable.
This year I interviewed EPT Prague champion Padraig O’Neill and he told me something that stuck with me. He said rather than use his newfound wealth to play in bigger games, he was instead going to simply play for a bigger percentage of himself in the games he has always played. It was a very professional attitude which really impressed me. A lot of players kneejerk play in $25ks after a big win like his.
Barone should continue playing the bigger games because he clearly is a boss at them, but other players who are slightly profitable at a higher stake but very profitable at a lower stake should take note. Especially if they rely on a backer and/or have mental game issues. It might be worth sacrificing some EV in favour of less variance. Having consistent winning years at lower stakes while carefully taking shots at higher games looks like the recipe for a long career.
Would you be better off playing lower stakes? Let us know in the comments:
