Quick question about blinds and dynamics of NLH » Small Stakes No Limit Discussion

In live NLH games (like at a casino), is there much of a difference in the way one would play at a $1-$2 table versus a $1-$3 table?

I'm used to $1-$2 NLH and I see that I have an option for $1-$3 NLH which I didn't take cause I wasn't sure how much of the dynamics of the game that changed or if there would be a difference in the caliber of player (and I speak mostly to the fact that the big blind is now $3 instead of $2 while the small blind has remained unchanged at $1).

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance

Thx -- I def. appreciate the input.

If you don't mind me asking -- do you find $1-$2 or $1-$3 to be beatable/profitable over the long run between the rake and people just kind of calling with any kind of pair on the board no matter what?

I found that the lack of strategy makes it more difficult and handcuffs me -- I eke out minor victories but nothing really substantial.

Do you have a good win rate at those stakes (live; not online)?

Hi BuckWild,

Do you find them (live $1-$2, $1-$3) profitable and worth it to play in between the rake and sort of "less strategy" involved?

I'm considering $2-$5 but I don't want to jump under the potential false pretense that the $2-$5 will be auto-more profitable and worth it.

Thx

Thx flakydorf -- I appreciate the honesty.

Unfortunately I guess that means that I still don't have the skill/talent/experience to win at those stakes yet in the live arena. I'll keep studying/practicing.

Thx

Hey EZGAME,

My apologies for the late response -- I just saw your post.

I def. appreciate the advice. I think my main problem is that I'm way too conservative. Maybe I'll experiment with being a little more loose-aggressive in late position and on the button; get a little more aggressive post-flop if the opportunity looks right.

Thx for the advice