Fixed limit begginer questions

Its harder to play a lot of tables fixed limit. the tables at stars are beatable for sure if you put work into it, but start out with less tables and focus on learning the new variant of poker And in my experience starting with FR is the better choise and then move to SH when you feel more comfortable in tough spots.
GL anyways

I did not make decision to switch from mss to FL yet but if i ever decide it i will definetelly play on FR,i think that that is the best.

I think it's kinda impossible beat to beat 0.5/1 and higher more than 3BB/100 by 10 tabling. 3BB/100 in FL means that you're basically crushing the limit (unless it's HU). You could definitely achieve it by 2-3 tabling but 10 tables would be just insane.

Mass-multitabling isn't that popular in FL as it's quite hard because you're having lots of postflop decisions and very often you'll play all the three streets. Some guys are doing this, but they're mostly break even and rakeback pros.

Yeah if you were 10 tabling .5/1 at stars, a 1BB/100 winrate would be good. The rake is quite high, 4.5BB/100 or something afair.

FL is a fun game becase you can get pretty splashy & comply with near optimal strat, but NL seems way easier to MTT and more profitable in terms of BB/100. For these reasons I've considered switching to NL.

edit: my run at .5/1 over recent months was 2BB/100 over 50k hands, mostly 3 tabling.

Yea but even on NL10 MSS i get 1bb/100

1bb=.5BB fwiw, and also, idk what the game conditions are like but theres always room to improve your play. I make an effort to improve often but still play quite badly much of the time.

1BB/100 at 0.5/1 is equivalent to 10bb/100 at NL10

The guys are correct though that very few mass-multi-tabling players are able to win at any sort of winrate these days and almost no-one beats stakes above the micros for 2BB/100+. Those who do are considered elite players at their limits (or just running hot )

Originally posted by Boomer2k10
1BB/100 at 0.5/1 is equivalent to 10bb/100 at NL10

this is just a guestimate amirite?

in terms of $/100 hands thats... $1/100 for NL and $1/100 for FL...

but in terms of game difficulty, i think things are quite fuzzy. I'd be interested to see a really smart way of comparing game varieties.

The usual way that has been used in the past is to use a factor of 5 or 6 when comparing stakes

So 5/T FL is about equivalent to 200NL

But this logic has probably changed in recent times. It used to be the case that winrates were much higher in NL than FL and thus 25-30 buyins was an acceptable bankroll whereas nowadays winrates between the 2 (given we're talking BB/100 and bb/100) are not actually that different, big bet winrates are still higher though, and bankroll recommendations have changed as well so it's really difficult to draw a comparison.

In terms of multi-tabling it's easier, imo, to multitable Big bet games rather than FL games. In FLHE certainly you're constantly making decisions, seeing showdown a lot and having to do a lot more clicking. The game is generally faster so I wouldn't expect to be able to play as many tables of FLHE as I would NLHE or tournaments.