Been doing some thinking about this today, especially after my horrendus run at Hollywood has forced me back down a limit (-$700 in 5 days, big for me, still up over all though).
What are the requirements to move up a limit, or to move back down? I thought up a few rules to follow when deciding
1) The Game.
Can you beat the game your moving into? If not, dont play it! No matter how big your bankroll is, you still can't beat it. How do you know if you can beat it without playing in it? Ask people who have played in it how it compares to other limits on other sites (cardrooms/casinos). Start your comparison there. Watch the game. Take note of how they are playing. Look at how into the game they are. Compare this to your old game, see how more attentive they are. Figure out the Shark to fish Ratio, and see if it's drastically worse than your old game. IF you feel this is not a good game for you to be playing in, dont play.
2) >200bb's of the limit you want to play.
This may seem low to some people, most 'experts' say you need 300 to play a given limit. Thats a theoretical amount so that you never go broke if you win 3 bb / 100 hands with a SD of 20 bb/100. Whatever. If your a good player, 200 is plenty so that if you do take a look at a higher limit and get slaughtered, it wont hurt you too much, and you can safely retreat to the lower level.
3) >400 bb's of the limit you are already playing.
If you have followed the rule #2 when you moved to this limit, you will have obviously have followed rule #1 to get to this point. Meaning, You beat the damn game. Having 400 bb's at this limit allows you, as mentioned, to take a look at a higher limit, and be able to retreat back here and be healthy.
These rules are in order of priority. If you can't fulfil #1, dont bother going onto #2. If you can't beat the game, then its not worth playing. If you dont have enough money to play in the game you want, then it doesnt matter how much you have at your lower limit. And if you dont have enough at the lower limit, why are you thinking about moving up?
As soon as any of the 3 rules are broken, you need to move down until they are all satisfied. (Ok maybe the room/site gets rid of a limit so that 3 is broken but 2 is ok, but thats a unique situation.) This will keep you playing within your bankroll and your skills at all times.
I would suggest 2,000bb and 4,000 bb for NL, but other, more experienced, NL players should correct me on that one.
Welcome to PokerForums.org
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Thread: When to move up
September 9th, 2005 #1
When to move upLuck is a Residue of Design.
September 10th, 2005 #2
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- PFO Points
I don't know. I find your advice to be pretty well suited for higher stakes players, in the 20/40 - $50/100+ range, provided they are not playing the game for a living (hence no bankroll depletion, and a < 10% chance of going broke is acceptable). For lower limits, I would advise taking much more risk and playing with a much smaller relative bankroll in order to move up in limits as fast as possible. There is no point spending time pulling in 50cents an hour grinding it out at 10cent/25cent table. If you go broke, big deal, your entire bankroll will have been only about $50 or so. I would recommend 50x BB, to at most 100x in the small games before moving up. It's simply not worth the extra time to build a bank at these levels since losing your entire bankroll, should it happen, is not a big deal.
September 10th, 2005 #3
Marm, A few comments from somebody playing micro limit ring on stars.
1) At the lower limits, I'm not sure how much watching a game is going to help. I found when I moved up both times in limits, the game didn't beat me, I beat me. (I hope I'm able to compensate for this on this secound jump I've made). I think instead of watching the game to be sure if you can beat it, you make sure you're in the right mindset to beat it. For me, this meant making sure I had a proper BR.
2) I think a jump can be made with less then 200BB IF you are self aware enough to realize that if you drop below 150BB at that level, you WILL drop back down. Instead of staying to try to beat that particular game. I'm saying this since I'm guessing at these levels, people (like myself) are still learning the game and there will be a learning curve, by moving up faster, and playing in games that make you a little nervous and force you to play better, you may shorten that curve.
3) I think this is a good idea, I might broaden the range a little bit to say between 350-400, but these are the points I've set for myself if I fell below them I would drop back down.
Some of us at the micro limits don't want to drop $50, (I didn't even start with $50) and if we did lose our bank roll, it may be a while until it was replenished. I think instead of saying that these rules only apply to the higher limits, it would be safer to say that these rules (or suggestions) depend on how seriously you are taking your game. If you are taking it as serious as I do then a .25/.50 limit hold-em table can feel like a 5/10 table to some. At this point, it's these are great guidelines.Originally Posted by Jason75
September 10th, 2005 #4
Im a wimp
I've always felt that BR was more about the experience you have than the amount you can afford to lose.
Certainly if my BR was stolen I'd simply deposit $1k and build up on NL 0.25/0.5 level. = 1000bb.
The fish mistake is not giving credit to more experienced players at higher limits. I think at 0.5/1 NL the poker changes from just playing cards (e.g you push with AA and get callers to justify it) to playing ppl on the table and fighting over the blinds. This is a completely different game and what can happen is that a soft 0.5/1 NL game starts off easy then the maniac leaves and it switches and you have to be able to switch your game. You can only do this if you've played a lot at the limit below and quite a lot at the limit your at - so you recognise the change.
Also at higher limits you need far more strategies outside the game: Bonus hunting, rakeback seeking out high overlay events, avoinding sites with poor rake structures (like POKERROOM) actually going into a ring game with a table strategy - I will often only play 30 hands on a table- make one called win then leave. If ppl see you win with a good hand they are less likely to bet against you.
What I'm saying is that I often come across ppl who put $1k in their BR and think they meet the criterion for playing at 0.5/1NL. They don't. I could probably buy into Wimbeldon to play tennis (if I had the money - actually I'm not sure I could but you get the idea).Of course I wouldn't get very far..
I suppose this is why tournaments are good for ring players. Really just about anyone can win a tournement and suddenly acquire a BR of $1000 - I see these guys all the time. They join a 0.5/1 NL table and win a few hands.. (pokergods are like that) and then after a week they disappear from my database. I know whats happened - they tried things like overplaying AK post flop and hit good players who won't put down QQ, they've given up blinds far too easy to a mp raiser - and a million and one other mistakes.
Each limit in NL is very different in character. I find it useful to mix them sometimes. I'll often play 0.5/1 and 1/2 at the moment. If I was playing during the American day I'd probably play 2/4.
I think this is the 20k hand rule. get PT: Your raw win rate at 20k is 3-8bb/100 at the higher limits. Four tabling 20k, is 1- two months. Emotionally I think 3000bb is needed for NL.
When I finally did the math - I was really surprised at the volatilty of SnG's. Literally 10+1 have up (and down) surges of $1000 with a fluctuation of +/- $150. at 20+2 the tables are so tight that the surges get to be $3000 with fluctuations of +/-$600. Don't get me wrong a good player will win these things but the swings are killers..See me playing $10/$20NL like it was play money
Doberman: "but Sarge, isn't poker gambling and just luck?"
Sgt. Bilko:" not the way I play it"
September 10th, 2005 #5Originally Posted by Marm“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann
September 10th, 2005 #6
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- PFO Points
- Blog Entries
I've talked with somone else about this privately before, and even mentioned it to Marm in another thread when I saw he had moved up to 2/4 on Hollywood.
The #1 thing about moving up to a higher limit is not your bankroll, it is your emotional bankroll.
What I mean is, how much money you can lose before it hits you emotionally. Say you have $2,000 and want to give 2/4 a shot; this seems like a good enough bankroll for 2/4 having 500BB. But if your psyche cannot stand losing a couple hundred dollars on a bad day you are not ready for this limit.
At 1/2 a $100 loss is very rare where losses of $25-50 happen time to time
At 2/4 a $100 loss is much more common given the increased stakes and the slight increase in good players.
And if your multi-tabling this will compound itself, you will second guess yourself, you will play timid, and other not so good things.
It is the emotional bankroll I would worry about, I know when I lose a certain amount it doesn't affect me emotionally, I can shrug it off But when I lose more than this amount I get frustrated even though I can afford it.
September 10th, 2005 #7
Talking about frustration, what pisses me off the most is when you get sucked out all in Pf at the final table 2 days in ar ow when you were a 80% favorite, I pisses me off so much that if It happened irl, I would be charged 4 murder.
September 10th, 2005 #8
Originally Posted by xxdemexx
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- PFO Points
September 10th, 2005 #9
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- PFO Points
- Blog Entries
What he is saying is that he feels losing $1000 in these games does not reflect on his ability to play them, I think thats what he means anyway.
One thing to remember is the higher you play the less fish need to be at the table to make it profitable.
at .25/.50 you could win $2/100 hands, or 4 bb/100, because you will find at least 1/2 the table sucks.
at 2/4 you will be doing great if you win 2bb/100 compared to the 4 you were winning at .25/.50. but the profit is higher so it comes to $8/100 hands. less fish but more profit.
if you can make more $$$ at 1/2 than 2/4 you stay, regardless of what you're win rate is. if I knew I could beat a 100/200 game for .25bb/100 I would play it even if I could beat a 20/40 game for 1 bb/100
September 10th, 2005 #10
*** Assuming he was bankrolled for it“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)