Discovering Fire?

[BWToth 0]

In the past week i've had a sort of 'awakening'. Or what I believe to be a minor revelation that I hope is not merely a mirage. Up until last weekend I've always played poker 'within my bankroll' and tried to 'grind my way up' cliche cliche, until I found myself down two buy-ins at the $50 NL tables in a span of less than 30 minutes....an hour later after tilting away all but $100 of my bankroll I decided to go put it all at at a 7 man $200 NL table. With a lot of luck I was up to $300 within the hour and by the end of the day I had my bankroll higher than it was to begin with. Point?Well, since then i've had a few small losses and a few more big winning sessions at the $200 level and although i'm still underbankrolled ($900) to play at the $200 tables I've been able to confidently continue my winning streak.In an attempt to rationalize my success beyond a mere 'good run of cards' I believe it may be the case that the way people play at the $200 table is more condusive to consistent winning. At least for my style of playAt the $50 full table patience is a key factor and if you aren't getting cards, it becomes easy to get sucked into a big pot with marginal holdings. Also it seems that most of the other players at the table are usually waiting for a big hand to try and double their stack. In turn it follows that a) you get a big hand and play it aggressively and win only a small pot b ) you get a big hand and get it all in with the best and double up c) you get a big hand and someone else who has been waiting around gets a bigger hand and adios amigod) you get a big hand, someone else gets a big hand, the money goes in and you get sucked out on.The up and down swings and stress (granted only $50) generally take a lot of the fun out of the game for me. In turn I lose more going on tilt than winning playing solid.However, at the $200 shorthanded table, most people seem to be aggresive all of the time, it turn big hands get paid off and small hands that hit get paid off as well. Most importantly, personally, it becomes easier to lay down a big hand when I need to because: the money at stake is more valuable to me, I'm seeing and playing tons more hands shorthanded instead of sitting there waiting for Aces at a full table $50 game.This, in turn, has led me to minimize losses while at the same time winning bigger amounts when i do make a hand. I've haven't completely worked out the intricacies of this idea yet, however, I think the core of what I'm trying to get at is there. Anyone have any thoughts about the validity of these ideas? :huh:Thanks,Toth.

[TB17 0]

Playing scared = BAD.Variance will come get you. I suggest not doing this, but sometimes it's better to learn the hard way.

[antistuff 0]

you could have found a $200 that is softer than the $50. it happens. be careful though, dont mistake lagginess for bad playing, especially shorthanded, and especially at no limit. i really wouldnt be playing that high with that amount of cash unless you really dont mind going broke. even if you are a winner at that game its fairly likely you will go broke before you win enough to be comfortable.

[mikeysong 0]

the games for the most part will likely be there.don't do stupid stuff like most of us, practice good br management and stop playing hte $200 nl please. < 5 buy ins? Not looking good

[JMoney2681 0]

Variance will come get you. I suggest not doing this, but sometimes it's better to learn the hard way.

QFT, Some players, especially OP seem like this is the only way. Once you hit that down swing, you pray to god that you were using proper BR management. And if you weren't you lose everything.

Up until last weekend I've always played poker 'within my bankroll' and tried to 'grind my way up' cliche cliche, until I found myself down two buy-ins at the $50 NL tables in a span of less than 30 minutes....

So if you were "properly" rolled with, say 20 buy ins, you lost 2 of them in 30 minutes and tilted?

Well, since then i've had a few small losses and a few more big winning sessions at the $200 level and although i'm still underbankrolled ($900) to play at the $200 tables I've been able to confidently continue my winning streak.

Well of course, you're on an upswing, wait for the bad times. Get out of 200NL with $900 before you lose it all and want to kill yourself.

However, at the $200 shorthanded table, most people seem to be aggresive all of the time, it turn big hands get paid off and small hands that hit get paid off as well.

How many hands could you have possibly logged in at the 200NL level to gauge things like this? It could've just been a lucky day or two. Be careful, I don't want to see a fellow FCP'r going down in flames for practicing TERRIBLE BR management.

[BudBundy 0]

No matter how good you are or how patient you are there are things that you can't control in poker.And these things can and will happen over and over in a very short period of time.Maybe you will have a extremely hot run and build your bankroll to 10k which is suitable for 200NL.Then you will want to take shot at 600NL or something.This is not the way to go mate.****Unless you don't mind losing that money.If you can lose it and deposit another 500 or 1k to start over its fine go take your shot but sooner or later you ll have to learn and study proper bankroll management.So the sooner the better.

[BWToth 0]

I'm fully aware of the bankroll implications and 'wrongness' of playing this level.My bigger question was about the difference in playing style and ability of the players between $50 and $200....Granted at these small limits I wouldn't expect to see a jump in the level of play to any drastic level, however, I seem to see a marked difference in the approach people take at the table... That's something that doesn't take 10,000 hands to evaluate.

[JMoney2681 0]

I'm fully aware of the bankroll implications and 'wrongness' of playing this level.My bigger question was about the difference in playing style and ability of the players between $50 and $200....Granted at these small limits I wouldn't expect to see a jump in the level of play to any drastic level, however, I seem to see a marked difference in the approach people take at the table... That's something that doesn't take 10,000 hands to evaluate.

Well, yes of course there is a different in skill level and player tendencies when comparing 50NL vs 200NL. But since the 200NL are going to be better, giving you less opportunities for good +EV situations, why play there? You don't even have the roll for it. I know what you're going to say, "I can't beat the 50NL players, they play like donks." How many hands have you played at that level? Someone like Zach would tell you that 50NL is an easy game to crush if you play well. It just takes time, if anything.

[BWToth 0]

Well, yes of course there is a different in skill level and player tendencies when comparing 50NL vs 200NL. But since the 200NL are going to be better, giving you less opportunities for good +EV situations, why play there? You don't even have the roll for it. I know what you're going to say, "I can't beat the 50NL players, they play like donks." How many hands have you played at that level? Someone like Zach would tell you that 50NL is an easy game to crush if you play well. It just takes time, if anything.

Time...and patience....lots of patience...If I was a horrible player incapable of post flop play I see the advantage of playing 50NL, however as i stated that style of play takes a lot of the fun and skill out of the game. And since i dont' play for a main source of income, why would I want to have a hobby that was boring and had the tendency to piss me off? Jmoney...i've seen some of your other posts and I know we are not going to see eye to eye on this

[JMoney2681 0]

Time...and patience....lots of patience...If I was a horrible player incapable of post flop play I see the advantage of playing 50NL, however as i stated that style of play takes a lot of the fun and skill out of the game. And since i dont' play for a main source of income, why would I want to have a hobby that was boring and had the tendency to piss me off? Jmoney...i've seen some of your other posts and I know we are not going to see eye to eye on this

I just don't want you going busto. If you're in it for fun, then by all means, have it. Go have fun and play, I thought you were serious, because we are in strat. If you're playing poker for fun then go have fun, but it doesn't sound like you are playing for "fun." You said you lost 2 buys ins and moved up, sounds like a $$$/getting even thing to me.

[navybuttons 15]

In an attempt to rationalize my success beyond a mere 'good run of cards' I believe it may be the case that the way people play at the $200 table is more condusive to consistent winning. At least for my style of play

you are not ready for even the $100NL tables.chalk up the br boost to a good run of cards, drop back down, and don't do it again.

[BWToth 0]

you are not ready for even the $100NL tables.chalk up the br boost to a good run of cards, drop back down, and don't do it again.

says who....I'm pretty sure i'm fully capable of playing at the $200 game i just don't have the roll to do it...apparently

[Uber-Donk 0]

I say GO FOR ITDo you want your whole life to be a grind.

[navybuttons 15]

says who....I'm pretty sure i'm fully capable of playing at the $200 game i just don't have the roll to do it...apparently

it is my belief that you lack a fundamental understanding of the game. i don't mean this to be offensive because i like you and what you post on this forum. i can say with some confidence that the deck probably smashed you over the head. you wouln't be 'pretty' sure that the you were capable of playing at the $200 level. you should be a winning player at the $100 for a thousand hours before you should move up to $200. literally a thousand.goodluck

[CobaltBlue 662]

you should be a winning player at the $100 for a thousand hours before you should move up to $200. literally a thousand.

Maybe live, but...online...multi-tabling...not so much. Granted, I still think you need to log a lot of hands. Probably something in the neighborhood of 10k.

[navybuttons 15]

Maybe live, but...online...multi-tabling...not so much. Granted, I still think you need to log a lot of hands. Probably something in the neighborhood of 10k.

maybe 1000 is a bit much for online. i'll go with this. 10K hands.you should have $1000 br to play $50 buy in and $2000 to play $100. i don't think making $1000 at $50 after 10K hands is unreasonable.then you'll know you should be playing $100. you'll have built the skill and confidence and you'll also have the bankroll.gl

[Actuary 3]

This topic has starkly delineated the difference in intelligence between the various members of this forum.Consequently, I have a new found respect for Acturary.

want to eat those words Toth ?We need to establish what your actual roll is.If indeed you have and won't ever have more money for poker in the forseeable future, you are being stupid playing $200 NL with $900If, in fact you can replenish the $900 regularly and have a bottomless roll, then it comes down to which game you make the most $$/hand in, and offset by all the down time when you are broke trying to scrape $100 together.You didn't think I'd let you get away with this did you?Start playing more hands at $50 NL...actually, go play $25 and lag it up. Get some good reads, multi-table, study game..see showdowns and put players on hands, and focus on Position, you should win a TON of hands without cards when you have postion. Use it! Crush the game because you can afford to gamble while they can't. You will love me one day.

[JMoney2681 0]

says who....I'm pretty sure i'm fully capable of playing at the $200 game i just don't have the roll to do it...apparently

If everyone is trying to help, maybe everyone is right, and you're wrong...? Just maybe though.

[Abbaddabba 0]

If you put the time in and you're good enough, it should take you a few week tops to make it there while following the trite rules that everyone here seems so fond of.But at the same time,If you're a big winner at the game you play, it doesnt matter if you start with only 4 buy ins. It's still more likely that you'll continue to win perpetually (assuming no withdrawls early on) than it is that you'll bust.People who continually take shots at higher stakes with a few buy ins, go bust, and go back down to the micros crying about how they should have practiced better bankroll management... they're generally just not very good.

I'm pretty sure i'm fully capable of playing at the $200 game

So is everyone else who plays poker.

[Actuary 3]

Abba, you just don't buy all that ruin theory huh?If I'm correct, you base that on the fact that while 200 BB down swings may happen every 50,ooo hands, the chance it happens before you've accumulated enough to fade them is low?But if you always w/d and move up and play with 100 BB, you have a great chance of busting..well..unless you step down as you lose that 100 BB....you've seemed to be one of the long term consistent winners.Any secrets that aren't clear and over posted?

[Abbaddabba 0]

If I'm correct, you base that on the fact that while 200 BB down swings may happen every 50,ooo hands, the chance it happens before you've accumulated enough to fade them is low?

Depends on how big a winner you are. http://www.internettexasholdem.com/index.p...kroll-calc.htmlI <3 playing around with the numbers.Assume a STDV of 15, and a ROR of 5%. Compare how many bets a .25BB/100 winner would need relative to a 2BB/100 winner who gets 100% rakeback (meaning they are effectively about a 4.5BB/100 winner).Now for another example, set your STDV at 15, your winrate at 4.5 and your risk of ruin at 49 (the point where winning indefinitely is marginally more likely than busting).And one final example i like to play with. I put my effective winrate and stdv in. I then adjust the risk of ruin field until the "bankroll" field reflects what my bankroll actually is. The associated level of ROR for my winrate, stdv and bankroll is: .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Assuming i never move down.Interesting thing to consider,If stakes were infinitely divisble, a winning player (or at least winning at all the levels they play at) who moved down when they halved their "bankroll" would NEVER bust even if they started with just 2 buyins.

[Actuary 3]

yeah, we get lazy and say 300BBmost of the time a person does not know their winrate when starting out, so 300BB is used as a ball park.numbers crunching is kinda geeky don't you think?I play by feel.

[Abbaddabba 0]

The typical player who asks those kinds of questions is a losing player though.So maybe we should recommend that they just dont play.

[Actuary 3]

The typical player who asks those kinds of questions is a losing player though.So maybe we should recommend that they just dont play.

call me atypical.I followed it strictly and conservatively.Like you.I used a post Smash had about moving thru and going to SH and mulitabling (that's what I did'nt do though)man, I'm a real poker under achieverthanks for making me feel bad.you suck abba.

[Abbaddabba 0]

The biggest difference is the amount of time i put in.You dont even really play.One or two tabling a few hours a week is nothing.Sign up on absolute or wpex, and start spitting out 5k hands a week. That only takes 10 hours a week if you 6 table.Even if you start at .50/1 playing conservatively, you should be where i am in about two or three months. Games arent tough this low and with 100% rakeback you dont have to be that big a winner to make progress.