Is volume a factor when moving up stakes?

Lets say we have two players who want to grind SNGs. They both are new to SNGs, both plan to start at the $1 + .20 9-seat tables, and both have a starting bankroll of $60 (50 buy-ins). Their bankroll management plan is to move up the next level ($2 + .25) when they have 50 buy-ins and drop down when they have 45 buy-ins.

$2.25 x 50= $112.5 - $60 = $52.5 in profits before moving up to the next level.

Player 1: Grinds out the $1 SNGs for 3 months. After 1000 games, he has $52.5 in profit and moves up to the next level.

Player 2: Goes on an absolute hot streak and wins 16 games in a row. $4.5 (1st) - $1.20 (buy-in) = $3.3 x 16 = $52.8 in profits.

Now, each player has met their BRM plans and have the proper BR for playing the $2 + .25 SNGs, but does this mean that player 2 has enough experience at the $1 tables to move up? Or should he still remain at the $1 and play more games?

If volume is a factor when moving up stakes, how many games should a person play at a level before moving up? Assuming, of course, that their bankroll allows them to move up.

if you think you are beating the game you are at, them move up. if you think you just hit a huge heater, then consider playing for more experience.

I don't think the difference at lower levels would be so great as to require a ton of volume before moving up 1 level. Also the thing about BRM is being able to move down. So moving up too fast shouldn't really be an issue as long as you're willing to move down if required.

I guess I have a question that kinda fits in this thread.

I have been playing 2.25 SNG (under BRM, i know, i know) and have a BR of $85

I started with a deposit of 10, and skipped the 1.20 SNG because of rake%.

I currently have 53 games logged with an ROI of 63%. Should I get my BR up to 275 before I give the 5.50 SNG a try?

In general, if you want to find out if your a winning player, you need to play at least 1000 games at a particular level. Now having said that, i would advise against playing long term at low stakes with rake being so high, so in both siutations i would say move up to a slightly better rake situation would be better in the long term. Check out my SNG FAQ, there's something written there about playing the 1.20 games. and how it's really hard to show a long term profit, even by good players.

billdogg said:

I guess I have a question that kinda fits in this thread.

I have been playing 2.25 SNG (under BRM, i know, i know) and have a BR of $85

I started with a deposit of 10, and skipped the 1.20 SNG because of rake%.

I currently have 53 games logged with an ROI of 63%. Should I get my BR up to 275 before I give the 5.50 SNG a try?

Click to expand...

Ok, so 53 games isn't a sample size that's even worth analyzing, and in general you would want at least 50 buy ins, but 100 is a really good cusion, plus if you only have 53 games experience, then moving up could be disastrous as the quality of play is going to be better.

You can expect that 63% ROI to drop dramatically as you play more and more games. So i would advise sticking to your current level until you have played at least 1000 games. Probably sounds like a lot for a guy who plays 1-2 tables, but it's the only way to know if your winning, and to knwo if your game is good enough to play higher.

Ok, thanks.

I'll keep grinding till I hit at least 50 buy in's at 5.50

WiZZiM said:

In general, if you want to find out if your a winning player, you need to play at least 1000 games at a particular level. Now having said that, i would advise against playing long term at low stakes with rake being so high, so in both siutations i would say move up to a slightly better rake situation would be better in the long term. Check out my SNG FAQ, there's something written there about playing the 1.20 games. and how it's really hard to show a long term profit, even by good players.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying about the rake. These were just an example and I could've used any buy-in amount for the question.

Also, I did enjoy reading your section on the $1 SNGs and how rake eats up profit.

Ahh ok then, then it will change my answer to this.

Volume is really important in deciding to move up in stakes. But what i have done in the past is this. using an example

Say im playing the 6.50 turbos on stars, and im bankrolled and think im good enough to play the 16 turbos. Lets say i play 15 tables at once at the 6'es. What i would do is, lower the amount of tables to say 12, and play half 6.50's and half 16's.

That way, i have more time to concentrate on the new game, im limiting my variance, and im getting experience at the new game before i jump into playing them full time. You can of course, change this to wahtever you are comfortable with, but i find this is a really good approach to use.

I do pretty much the same thing as WiZ when I'm moving up, playing half my current stakes and half the new stakes. I just play a lot less tables to start with (4-6 typically).

As for the original question volume is a consideration but if you're playing half and half or prepared to move back down if you don't win at the higher stakes I don't think it's such a big deal. You might not have enough data to know if you're a long-term winner at the lower level but if you win at the higher level I guess you don't really care. And if you don't win at the higher level then you're back to the lower level getting more data soon enough anyway.

WiZZiM said:

In general, if you want to find out if your a winning player, you need to play at least 1000 games at a particular level. Now having said that, i would advise against playing long term at low stakes with rake being so high, so in both siutations i would say move up to a slightly better rake situation would be better in the long term. Check out my SNG FAQ, there's something written there about playing the 1.20 games. and how it's really hard to show a long term profit, even by good players.

Click to expand...

1.2 SnGs are indeed verry hard to beat. It is not impossible but it is hard. I play the DONS. I have to win 2/3 of them to make a profit of 40 cents. Usualy i win 4/5 but there are times when i loose 3-4 in a strike(bad luck) and i have to do i all over again.

At 1.2 normal SNGs u have to be better tha 1/4 to win the minimum profit or to be second place better 2/3 . And to win 1/4 or 2/3 second place u have to be a verry god player.
But if you can at least beat the rake in 1000 games at 1.2 u can consider yourself a decent SNG payer and move up.

The problem with moving up to a better rake is that at higher buy-ins are better players . U still have to improve your game because the rake is easyer to beat but the games are harder to win.

swingro said:

The problem with moving up to a better rake is that at higher buy-ins are better players . U still have to improve your game because the rake is easyer to beat but the games are harder to win.

Click to expand...

While it's generally true that moving up in stakes means you'll have to play a better game and beat better players, I think the skill difference between $1 and $2 STTs is negligible so we're not really risking anything skill-wise in order to pay a lower percentage of rake.

We do need to be aware that variance can bite us if we're playing $2 games with a $1 bankroll though.

OzExorcist said:

While it's generally true that moving up in stakes means you'll have to play a better game and beat better players, I think the skill difference between $1 and $2 STTs is negligible so we're not really risking anything skill-wise in order to pay a lower percentage of rake.

We do need to be aware that variance can bite us if we're playing $2 games with a $1 bankroll though.

Click to expand...

I play on ipoker network and the rake is 40 c at 2$ buy-in
Rake is better at 3 $ buy-in though. only 30 cents. Never played there

Very good thread for novice players like myself now if i can just keep a BR to play with