When to move up
McFearless
Tom McHugh asks, regarding moving up in limit:
>(1) when do you know you are ready?
Two things I look for:
1. Am I winning consistently at the limit I'm at? If you keep accurate
records, this is easy enough to figure out.
2. Are the plays that I'm making consistently not understood or too
sophisticated for the level I'm playing at? You may find that things like
semi-bluffs in certain situations are totally lost on your opponents and
you might find that you're getting occasionally frustrated with the
mistakes players make against you. You'll always find players that make
mistakes, but you're pretty much ready to move up when you start feeling
*contempt* for your opponents mistakes.
Other signs are boredom and a lack of feeling challenged.
>(2) How much better are the players?
You'll find tough players and weak players, though at higher limits the
balance tips toward tough. I'd never suggest that you just jump into a
higher limit game and never look back. I'd probably start by hitting the
higher limit tables perhaps 1 out of 4 sessions and gradually make a
transition that will have you playing 4 out of 4 sessions at the higher
limit.
---Doug
tom mchugh
I have been playing Holdem for about 4yrs.Started out playing 5-10 and
got killed. Then and there I swore to learn the game . I bought all the
books, and computer progams and started all over again at 2-4 and won
for 13 months and moved up to 3-6 and won, then started playing both 3-6
,and 5-10, Now I only play 5-10 and have been winning steadily.I have
played in S.Cal, Nev., Az, and Ct. in the last 18mos and have won.(some
of the area's don't have 5-10 so I played some form of 4-8)
Question:( 1 ) when do you know you are ready
(2) How much better are the players
Thanks
Tom McHugh
Winner777
When you have an adequate bankroll for the limit that you are playing (200
big bets) in the 5-10 example $2000, take all the money that you have in
excess of $2000 and shoot at a 10-20. If you lose the money, go back to
5-10 until you have enough to take another shot.
Ed Hill
AMIEVIL112
>>>Question:( 1 ) when do you know you are ready<<<<
If you have beaten a 4-8 or 5-10 game for `18 months running than there is
nothing to stop you from moving up.
>>>(2) How much better are the players<<<
The 10-20 games are where you can see the difference in games from
anything lower, but it is not that big of a difference at the 120-20
level. In the lower limit games oyu have played you win more money
because of peoples mistakes rather than your own good play. At the 10-20
level there are less people making the same mistakes over and over again.
I still find the 10-20 games in both HE and stud in LV, LA, and AC to be
filled with fish, but just not as many as a 5-10 or lower game. The 15-30
level is where the games get tougher, but they are still good in AC, not
in LV I think.
>>>(3) Is 200 big bets enought BR.<<<
Absolutely not. This would be just 4000 bucks. Your buy in in a 10-20 HE
game is usually a rack of 500, but you can burn through this quickly in
this game. As you move up higher in the limits you need more money to
play with as one bad streak can ruin your 4000 buycks quickly. It also
depends what your situation is -as an amateur you can definitely take a
shot at a higher game -if you aspire to professional level play than your
bankroll needs to be at least 500 big bets and then have a living savings
of say 25 thousand bucks so the stresses of the game dont affect your
lifestyle. That is why there are so few pros - they can not make manage
their money well enough and seperate playing money from living money.
Anyhow, good luck.
steve
AMIEVIL112
>>> You'll always find players that make
mistakes, but you're pretty much ready to move up when you start feeling
*contempt* for your opponents mistakes.<<<
Actually I think just the opposite. Once you get a good feeling inside
when a real fish sits down is when you are ready to move up. When someone
makes a stupid move against me and wins it makes me feel good because I
realize they are just basically handing me money in the long run and I
never loose sight of that. If you can differentiate the fish from the
sharks, then it is time to move on.
steve
Ramsey
>Tom McHugh asks, regarding moving up in limit:
>
>
Doug replied:
>Two things I look for:
>
>1. Am I winning consistently at the limit I'm at? If you keep accurate
>records, this is easy enough to figure out.
Perhaps more relevant is how much per hour am I making. If you are a
consistent winner but are averaging only 0.25BB per hour then you must
worry about whether the increased skill at a higher level will wipe out
your win rate. If your win rate is say 0.75BB per hour then you will
probably still be profitable at the next level but you ought to ask
yourself why you are making only that rate when the general consensus is
that the top players in a given game should average 1.5BB. At the least
there is a suggestion that you can improve your win rate at nil risk by
working hard at your current level.
>
>2. Are the plays that I'm making consistently not understood or too
>sophisticated for the level I'm playing at? You may find that things like
>semi-bluffs in certain situations are totally lost on your opponents and
>you might find that you're getting occasionally frustrated with the
>mistakes players make against you. You'll always find players that make
>mistakes, but you're pretty much ready to move up when you start feeling
>*contempt* for your opponents mistakes.
Wow. Do our views diverge on this. If you agree with the above I think
you should move down the snake and not up the ladder :)
Suppose you flop a 4 flush. Fish bets, you semi-bluff raise and
everyone else folds. On the turn a blank comes and the fish bets out.
Who made the mistake? The fish for not understanding your
'sophisticated' play or you for making it?
The statement '..you're getting occasionally frustrated with the
mistakes players are making against you..' implies they are doing the
right thing (even if for the wrong reasons). Put another way you are
not playing optimally. If you cannot play optimally at one level it is
unlikely that you can do so at a higher level.
To contimue the example. At the next level they may well understand the
semi-bluff. And you may get away with it for a while. But then you
will find that you are getting reraised; followed by a bet/fold
depending on the turn card. Are they not understanding your play or are
they understanding it just too well?
-------
The question raised by the original poster is a staple of this newsgroup
so let me add a new slant and say perhaps the answer should be never.
Or to put it another way the question is meaningless...
Consider our rookie arriving fresh scrubbed in his first poker room;
money in one pocket, a well thumbed copy of Lee Jones in his other.
He considers all the games available in the room and selects, naturally,
one at the lowest level. He may win or lose the first few times. But
with experience, and study he gradually improves.
He also starts to get to know the regulars. He begins to know who the
winners and losers are. He also gets some experience against players
who normally play at higher levels but, for whatever reason, are passing
time in his game.
One day he comes to the poker room, feeling good, and with a healthy
backroll. This time he sees a game at the next higher level. In it are
a few players he's not seen before; a few who are regulars but he has
played against in the lower game and doesn't fear; a few who only play
at the higher level but he knows are regular losers; and perhaps just 1
or 2 of the tougher players who he rightly respects.
So he gives that game a try. The weaker players in the game protect his
ev and he gives respect where due, watching the table experts and
learning from what they do and how they play.
The next few times he plays there may be no game at that level he feels
comfortable with. So he plays at his normal level. But from time to
time the right games present themselves and he takes the opportunities
as they arrive. He never actually moves to a higher level. He
continues to play at tables where he feels he has the advantage. But
gradually he finds that his normal game is at the higher level.
Sometimes he will play in the lower game; sometimes he will spot a game
at an even higher level which he knows he can beat.
So, my long-winded point is, that a player should never conciously move
up from one level to another. Instead he should consider all the
available games and select the one which offers the best advantage. If
a player is working hard at the game then gradually this 'best' game
will be at increasingly higher levels - but every time he plays he
concentrates on game selection, *NOT* level selection.
--
Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
McFearless
I penned:
>>2. Are the plays that I'm making consistently not understood or too
>>sophisticated for the level I'm playing at? You may find that things
like
>>semi-bluffs in certain situations are totally lost on your opponents and
>>you might find that you're getting occasionally frustrated with the
>>mistakes players make against you. You'll always find players that make
>>mistakes, but you're pretty much ready to move up when you start feeling
>>*contempt* for your opponents mistakes.
Then Ramsey (sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>Wow. Do our views diverge on this. If you agree with the above I think
>you should move down the snake and not up the ladder :)
<some well thought reasons snippered>
Now me:
Ha. Caught again with the old foot in the mouth!
I caught a lot of hell about the *contempt* remark, and of course the rest
just falls right in line with that thinking.
What I was trying to express was that I found it *necessary* to move up in
limit when winning really became too easy. Sounds strange, because why
would one want to leave a limit when he wins in it so easily, and possibly
might find some losses hitting him when he moves up in limit? (This, I
think, is in line with your thinking as to why one shouldn't bother, or
ever, move up in limit).
The fact is that poker is a challenging game and one must respect his
competition. Bobby Fischer doesn't waste his time playing chess with a
complete idiot like me, nor does Jack Nicklaus make a weekly tee time so
he and I can round the links together. Poker is, in fact, probably the
only "sport" where the skill of the opponents can be so thoroughly
mismatched.
I found, as I left the lower limits and began moving up the ladder, that
every time I sat in a low limit game I could literally demolish the
competition without thinking. I could play my worst game, literally, and
still come out ahead. It seems tempting at this point to swear off the
higher limit games where I have to work and work damn hard for every penny
I make, in favor of the lower limit games where winning is so simple. But
I don't. It's not only the money, really (I'm pretty well off with my
career and all), but the level of competition. Knowing you're playing
against the best and surviving (or even making money) is part of the
gratification of playing.
For those who are poker pro's, of course the bottom line is the
consideration. If they're making more in a 3-6 game than they would in a
12-24 game just because the competition is easier, then they should, by
all means, never leave the 3-6 arena and follow a pattern such as the one
your post suggests.
Ultimately, the decision to move up is based not only on winning at a
lower level but also as a gratification for the ego---to attain new
heights and fry other fish on the way to the top.
I hope that I've clarified my position a little better...Thanks for your
post.
---Doug
Darren Rowley
Ramsey <sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So, my long-winded point is, that a player should never conciously move
>up from one level to another. Instead he should consider all the
>available games and select the one which offers the best advantage. If
>a player is working hard at the game then gradually this 'best' game
>will be at increasingly higher levels - but every time he plays he
>concentrates on game selection, *NOT* level selection.
>
Great post (as usual), can you clarify one point.
Surely the players total overall bankroll consideration must come into
this. If s/he has enough money in their pocket to buy into the 'best'
20/40 game this session but their overall overall bankroll is only
$5000 are you saying they should sit down in this game?
Darren (EalingDR)
(a pom)Auckland, New Zealand