How do you define "ready to move up" ?

[skrsh76]

OK, this is actually getting us somewhere now, a usable definition that people can measure themselves by. It would be nice to have something beginners and novices could use.

How about this as a starting point:

"In order to assess whether you are ready to consider moving to a higher level, you should concentrate on three areas: increasing your starting bankroll, playing an appreciable sample size of hands, and demonstrating knowledge of key concepts.

1. Bankroll

You should adhere to Ferguson rules, as follows:

* 2NL: start with $40, move up to 5NL at $100 NL
* 5NL: Start with $100, move up to 10 NL at $200
* 10 NL: Start with $200, move up to 25NL at $ 500

Only move up if conditions 2 and 3 are also met.

2. Sample Size

Play the minimum hands at the level you are on:
* no less than 50,000 hands (to account for downswings, variance, etc)
* the last 25,000 hands played must be at a win rate of no less than 3bb/100

Only move up if conditions 1 and 3 are also met.


3. Master key concepts.

At each level, demonstrate understanding of key concepts:

2NL:
* Hand Values
* Opening Ranges

5 NL:
* Positional Play
* Hand Reading

10NL:
* Bet Sizing
* Bluffing

25NL
* Advanced Hand Reading
* Representing

Only move on to the next level if you have mastered the key concepts plus conditions 1 and 3 are met.



OK, this is a starting definition, I hope you can feel free to improve it.

So, the aim of this is to give us all a starting point, and for new players ior people struggling, to give them something they can look at and help them quantify what they need to do to consider themselves ready for the next move.

We can also use it to nip disagreements in the bud - ie, until you have 50k hands, you can't claim anything about play on a level. (as has been pointed out to me and I readily accept).

Or, someone wanting to move up, let's discuss some of the concepts we agree you need to master on a level, post hands, discuss, and test if the concept really has been mastered.

I dunno, I just thought it might help take away some of the heat when people are struggling to find their place.

Sounds pretty good discussion and I like the summary as well...I am sure others can contribute and improve this even further. I am watching this keenly.

 

[vinylspiros]

Hey enesem, If you already know the answer, then why are you even asking in the first place?


You ask, we answer. You dont like our replies. sighsssssss. Cant add anything more here, other than, you are overcomplicating things for no reason.

 

[enesem]

Hey enesem, If you already know the answer, then why are you even asking in the first place?


You ask, we answer. You dont like our replies. sighsssssss. Cant add anything more here, other than, you are overcomplicating things for no reason.

 

[vinylspiros]

GL.

 

[IPlay]

Hey enesem, If you already know the answer, then why are you even asking in the first place?


You ask, we answer. You dont like our replies. sighsssssss. Cant add anything more here, other than, you are overcomplicating things for no reason.

This, if you can afford it from your real life bank account, then go play 25NL, simple as that. If you lose, who cares? Nobody but you, if you win, who cares? Nobody but you. Poker is a solitary game when it comes to your decisions. Do whatever you want.

Also, I like the concept post you made. Just use that

 

[Logan2]

I agree with you on most of it, but all 3 points are personal preference.

People can decide if want to use 20/25/30 or even less/more bi´s by level, or taking shots mixing levels with your normal level playing.

On sample size, there is really no need to stay 50k hands on 2nl for example if you are already rolled for the next level.
You will not know for sure if your 20k hands was a heater or not but who cares, you can be taking shots on 5nl if your BR aloud to when the other is still on 2nl trying to run 50k hands just to have a rough idea if really beating the level.

Point 3 the same, why need to wait until 10nl to bet sizing be a key concept?, you can try to master this since 2nl too if you want, so again personal preference.

I think what you are confusing about the 25nl jump was that it don´t matter you skip 10nl and jump to 25nl from 5nl, people don´t mess with you because you skip the level, people mess with you because you said 5nl was a shitty level where can´t learn nothing and that you can´t beat it because people play bad, and that you can beat 25nl because you was winning on 3.5k hands, and the reason for be winning was that people play better so you could play real poker

That´s a different thing.
​

 

[enesem]

Yeah -

Look, I am not actually referring to my move to 25NL - that IS a personal thing, in that I am more balanced there. However I clearly haven't beaten 5NL.

I was told I hadn't beaten 5NL (which I accept), but no-one seemed to be explaining what it meant to beat 5NL.

All I can say that for now, I am doing OK at 25NL (but based on above, I know I can't really claim that until I show consistent results over 50k hands). I will also continue to play 5NL in order to see if I can turn it around.

A lot of people looking to improve their game make the same mistakes.

All as i am trying to do here is get a definition of what it means to be doing well on a level, what you should be looking to master on a level and how you measure it before you move up.

My suggestions were just that, suggestions - anyone can edit/add to what I have done (it's open source) - maybe we can produce a quick statement that anyone struggling with these steps can look at for guidance.

Feel free to amend / improve and repost, if it's useful.

As for your suggestions, then yes, let's make bet sizing a concept you need to nail at 2NL, plus any other key concepts, and the level you need to be at to master them.

Some may see this as over complicating things, I would say that I am sure someone getting into this would find this kind of road map useful.

For disclosure, I am an engineer by profession, and I create and deliver extremely technical training courses, hence me thinking a plan like this would be useful.

I also want to add, I value every opinion that's been offered, even if I didn't verbalise it well, which made me think that the collective minds we have here could surely offer something here.

It's a lot easier to get people to a destination if they understand what the journey is about.

I would be very pleased to have anyone suggest improvements to my initial first draft.

 

[Keith_MM]

I can't see the point in over complicating this.

you set your bankroll targets to move up if you exceed them and to move down if you drop through your floor to protect your bankroll from going broke. If your bankroll says that you are now rolled to take a shot at the next level up you have beaten your current level. who cares if its through luck or skill. your all in EV line will tell you that.

If you can afford to deposit to play higher or keep playing a stake , you aren't considering your bankroll properly. the money that you intend to keep depositing is also your bankroll. If you intend to keep depositing , theres no need to move down until you can no longer afford to keep depositing or you need to rebuild your confidence or enjjoy actuall beating a certain stake.

 

[enesem]

Should you always start at the bottom or start at the level your bankroll supports?

 

[IPlay]

Should you always start at the bottom or start at the level your bankroll supports?

Lol.. Starting at the bottom is obviously the recommended way. If you are willing to risk the money by starting at higher stakes, that is on you. I think everyone would recommend you beat 5NL first though. If you can't beat the bad players at 5NL, chances are you won't beat the regs at 25NL.

But hey, you never know! Do what you want man!

 

[enesem]

How would you define beat?

 

[IPlay]

How would you define beat?

Is the next post going to be you revealing this is an April Fools joke?

Haha, pretty good one, you had me going lmao.

 

[Ubercroz]

I think the real question is, what are you trying to accomplish?

If your goal is to play at higher stakes, then simply play at whatever stakes you want to play at. Put enough money online to have around 20-30 buy-ins at the stake you want to play at and play. Simple enough. You are prepared to play at that level.

If you want to improve at poker then there is some merit in playing at the lower stakes.

I think trying to define specific lessons to learn from the different stakes is kind of faulty thinking. You can learn a ton at the smaller stakes of poker. You can learn what flops look like and how different hands hit those flops, you can see how different bet sizes work and how different kinds of opponents react to those bets.

I read the thread where you said you were getting "hammered" for playing at 25nl. Lets be more accurate than that, you were not getting hammered for playing 25nl. In fact almost every person in that thread said play whatever you want to play, its your money do what you want. What you were being hammered for was saying that it was easier to beat 25nl than it was to beat 5nl.

The reason you were being abused for that notion is because it is poor reasoning and faulty logic. You are essentially saying that worse players are harder to beat. That doesn't make any sense. Thinking logically if people are worse at a thing then they shouldn't be harder to beat. You don't see chess grandmaster ripping out their hair because they can't beat a beginner. In fact, they beat the beginner too - they just use a simpler strategy.

If you cannot beat 5nl, you will not be able to beat 25nl. conversely if you can beat 25nl then you can beat 5nl, and probably at a better rate.

What you are experiencing is better players reacting to an unknown, and/or a hot run of cards. You may have been able to exploit these better players in the short run because they have not yet had the opportunity to adjust. Once they adjust you will begin losing.

Its not that you have to be able to beat Xnl before you go to Ynl. That isn't the point. The point is that better players tend to play at the higher stakes. The reason is that they are beating those lower stakes. People who don't beat the lower stakes and move up feed the winners. The winners want the worse players around because winners know how to exploit their bad play.

Defining what "beating" a stake is will essentially be a meaningless task. If you are beating a stake then you will see your bank roll grow. It will continue to grow until one of a few things happens; 1) your hot streak ends and you lose everything you made because you never learned to play, and/or 2) you eventually get to a stake you cannot beat because you are not good enough to beat it.

Instead of trying to make an excuse for yourself as to why you want to play at a higher stake how about you just learn to play. If you want to play at 25nl then god bless you. If you can't beat 5nl you will lose there too. Give me 50k hands where you are a winning player at ANY stake and I will say good job.

Until you do the work, don't expect people to change their perceptions of your play. Anyone who has played a lot of online poker has seen it happen before where someone cries how much easier it is to beat better players only to see that guy get crushed.

Usually we were the ones saying it, before we knew better.

TL;DR - If you are winning at a stake for 50k hands then who cares what beating a stake means. Stop trying to excuse what stake you are playing at and do the work.

 

[Logan2]

All I can say that for now, I am doing OK at 25NL (but based on above, I know I can't really claim that until I show consistent results over 50k hands). I will also continue to play 5NL in order to see if I can turn it around.

Why??

If you are rolled for 25nl, you feel better playing there, and winning at the time why play 5nl too?.

The time you going to spend playing 5nl you can use it to load more hands on 25nl, getting more experience there, get more stats/make notes on regs.

I know players from 50nl that load 2nl hands from time to time if are on tilt, want to play drunk or not focus, or because want to try some new plays, but Playing 5nl just to turn around results there looks like a waist of time if playing on 25nl and rolled for that

 

[vinylspiros]

+1. Ubercruz

 

[enesem]

This thread has kind of turned in a direction I didn't want or expect it to. OK, I did rant about 5NL, but the bottom line is that it frustrates me how strange the play is and I do want to be able to do well at that level, I do see it as a challenge.

All I wanted to do with this thread is to try and get some meaning. It's a simple question, though clearly not a simple answer.

Imagine, all of you who have chipped in to this thread, that you all become Poker teachers, and you all sign up your first student, who is completely new to the game. You teach him the rules and the basics, enough to the point where you are happy to let the sudent start to play 2NL.

And, you say to the student, you are not to play 5NL until you beat 2NL.

And the student replies, "In what way can I demonstrate to you that I have beat 2NL to your satisfaction in order that you allow me play 5NL?"

I am genuinely interested in how you each would reply. I am not arguing against anyone's perspective, or saying any answer is wrong. It's something that really does interest me.

For example, we have had a suggestion that you need to show BR improvement, but as we know, someone on heat can do that over a short sample. So we have someone say you need to play 50k hands, but someone else said you don't need to play that many.

I really am sorry if this has angered or frustrated people. I know I am taking some flak here, if anything I am actually exposing myself here by STILL trying to do it the right way and play 5NL.

I clearly am not doing great at 5NL, in order to be a complete player I recognise it's important to be good at this level.

I value all of your experiences, hence me starting this thread - to try and get an idea of what everyone's perception is of what "beating" means, what "crushing" means, and in what way can , demonstrably, measurably show they are beating a level.

Honestly, I come in peace.

 

[micromachine]

You present this as a hypothetical scenario but it's really you we are taking about here isn't it?

Like I said before, play 50k hands at 5nl and see how you get on, if you are losing then stay there for another 50k, if you are winning and are bankrolled for 10nl then move up and do the same there

 

[Ubercroz]

I would tell them that beating a stake is getting more than 0.00 bb's/100 hands. beating simply means you are making some money at that stake. you are no longer losing. Winning and losing for our purposes are divided by the break even sign.

Crushing a stake is getting 8+bb's/100 hands.

The minimum size sample I would be willing to use to have that first look is around 25k hands. If I was telling a student, for whatever reason (I wouldn't likely do this) they HAD to definitively be beating the stake to move up, it would probably be at 50k hands that I would do the moving up review.

Additionally, if my student was crushing one stake and only barely beating another (2-3bb/100) then I would recommend they move down.

I guess I understand your curiosity, but not exactly. To what end does helping to define what beating or crushing a stake bring you? While I indulge your interest, I don't see how it will benefit you or anyone.

I think that the differences between 2/5/10 nl are fairly thin. Its really at 25 where things begin to peel back and then moreso at 50. Those are kind of natural breakdowns. 10 is a little harder than 5, 5 is a little harder than 2. But I would consider someone's winrate across that entire spectrum when looking at if you are "beating the micro's." If you happen to have enough Bankroll to move up to 5nl from 2nl and then on to 10nl, so be it. By the time you are rolled to play 25nl you will likely have a big enough sample to have a meaningful idea of if you are a winning player or not.

Setting arbitrary rules for what beating or not beating a stake should be unnecessary, because you should be getting close to a correct sample size by the time you are ready to move.

Also - I don't think anyone is being aggressive here. I think you are perceiving stern language as angry language. We also come in peace.

 

[enesem]

You present this as a hypothetical scenario but it's really you we are taking about here isn't it?

Like I said before, play 50k hands at 5nl and see how you get on, if you are losing then stay there for another 50k, if you are winning and are bankrolled for 10nl then move up and do the same there

Yes and no - of course, i am going to look at what everyone says and try to derive a plan.

However, I am still interested in everyone's different perspective.

Here, for example, you seem to be saying to assess it over 50k hands -if I accept this as a good way to view it, now I will be less stressed about my current sample (20k hands). But you don't say how much of a win rate you should present ? 3bb/100 over all 50k hands, or play 50 and show 3bb/100 over the last 25k ? I'm not asking for a hard and fast rule, just how you, personally, would measure it. What would you tell your student to aim for ?

If everyone says more or less the same, then I know I have 30k hands to turn it around. Maybe then if I allow for mistakes and learning, there is progress.

Someone else might say, you need to be able to do it in 20k hands - that paints a less kind picture and would mean there is even more work to do.

It's very difficult to measure yourself without a scale.

Of course, there is no 100% correct way, hence me asking for different opinions on how you measure success.

Honestly, i just wanted to find out how different people view it.

And, I do appreciate you taking time to give me a considered answer.

 

[enesem]

I would tell them that beating a stake is getting more than 0.00 bb's/100 hands. beating simply means you are making some money at that stake. you are no longer losing. Winning and losing for our purposes are divided by the break even sign.

Crushing a stake is getting 8+bb's/100 hands.

The minimum size sample I would be willing to use to have that first look is around 25k hands. If I was telling a student, for whatever reason (I wouldn't likely do this) they HAD to definitively be beating the stake to move up, it would probably be at 50k hands that I would do the moving up review.

Additionally, if my student was crushing one stake and only barely beating another (2-3bb/100) then I would recommend they move down.

I guess I understand your curiosity, but not exactly. To what end does helping to define what beating or crushing a stake bring you? While I indulge your interest, I don't see how it will benefit you or anyone.

I think that the differences between 2/5/10 nl are fairly thin. Its really at 25 where things begin to peel back and then moreso at 50. Those are kind of natural breakdowns. 10 is a little harder than 5, 5 is a little harder than 2. But I would consider someone's winrate across that entire spectrum when looking at if you are "beating the micro's." If you happen to have enough Bankroll to move up to 5nl from 2nl and then on to 10nl, so be it. By the time you are rolled to play 25nl you will likely have a big enough sample to have a meaningful idea of if you are a winning player or not.

Setting arbitrary rules for what beating or not beating a stake should be unnecessary, because you should be getting close to a correct sample size by the time you are ready to move.

Also - I don't think anyone is being aggressive here. I think you are perceiving stern language as angry language. We also come in peace.

Great answer and lots of useful points, thank you.

Not hard and fast rules, just guidelines.

 

[micromachine]

This is very subjective ofc but if someone was beating a level for 2-3bb/100 over 50k hands and was rolled for the next level I would advise moving up and testing the waters.

 

[SeaRun]

SNIP>>>> Here, for example, you seem to be saying to assess it over 50k hands -if I accept this as a good way to view it, now I will be less stressed about my current sample (20k hands). But you don't say how much of a win rate you should present ? 3bb/100 over all 50k hands, or play 50 and show 3bb/100 over the last 25k ? I'm not asking for a hard and fast rule, just how you, personally, would measure it. What would you tell your student to aim for ?>>>>SNIP

I'll offer up my own perspective as an answer to that, note all are at $2 NL.

Today, 1140 hands and I'm up 35.64 bbs/100. But that sample size is so small it would give any good statistician fits.

Last 14,000 hands I'm at a rate of 16.76/100 hands. Does this qualify me to move up? Not in my eyes, because I already found out first hand what a 15,000 hand downer feels like, and granted, a lot of that was me on a steep learning curve, but still, I know it can happen and last LOOOONNNNGGGG and be frustrating.

The nearly 43K hands I've played since getting PT4 are now at a rate of 2.51 bbs/100, and my thoughts is even if I was rolled for a move to $5 (which I am) I am still learning so much I'm not sure I'm ready.

Now, others may say I could / should move up. Have I dabbled in it? Yes, but I still lose too many big hands to be successful at next level IMHO.

So again, I'll say the same thing as I've said and so many more in this thread, it's "PERSONAL", if you think you're ready, do it.

 

[SeaRun]

This is very subjective ofc but if someone was beating a level for 2-3bb/100 over 50k hands and was rolled for the next level I would advise moving up and testing the waters.

Not to jack the thread, but to put again my personal experience on Micro's advice (and note, I have extreme respect and appreciation for any of Micro's advice) and referring back ot something I said in my previous post:

Over the past 14000 hands, I've lost 14 hands that are over a BI of 100 bbs. Might not seem like much, but when you consider it's for a total of 1934 bbs (nearly 19.5 BIs).

Now, while Micro, or any of the more knowledgeable folks here may say that's quite normal, or maybe it's showing a big leak in my game somewhere (which I believe it is, but I stand to be corrected), to me, with this big loss rate, I'm not ready to move up. There's something wrong that I need to correct to feel in my own mind I'm ready.

Again, personal belief.

 

[dj11]

There is no 'Rule' about having to even start learning poker at the micro levels. If br is not an issue you can start at 25nl.

What the answers here are trying to do is provide guidelines (not 'rules'), on what should be considered in self-evaluation by each of us in making a conscious decision to take poker more seriously, and move to bigger stakes. And for the most part every one of the early reply's are geared toward cheap stakes. Many of us started playing purely for fun, freerolls even, and perhaps play money games.

We did a lot of learning for free. We found we liked the mental challenge of learning the game, and somewhere along the line discovered that NO ONE KNOWS IT ALL about poker.

So by consensus, over many years, (hundred of poker years when combined), over many threads we shared our experiences, and continue to learn and process new experiences. But still, we do offer suggestions geared at the noob.

But if you are filthy rich, you can avoid the whole micro game, maybe even the low levels, and start at the nose bleed levels, where you will be a loved player.

And a case can be made to avoid the micro's altogether.

So, the reply's made here are for a methodical progression for cheapo's (like me) who want to maximize potential with minimal risk.

 

[micromachine]

Not to jack the thread, but to put again my personal experience on Micro's advice (and note, I have extreme respect and appreciation for any of Micro's advice) and referring back ot something I said in my previous post:

Over the past 14000 hands, I've lost 14 hands that are over a BI of 100 bbs. Might not seem like much, but when you consider it's for a total of 1934 bbs (nearly 19.5 BIs).

Now, while Micro, or any of the more knowledgeable folks here may say that's quite normal, or maybe it's showing a big leak in my game somewhere (which I believe it is, but I stand to be corrected), to me, with this big loss rate, I'm not ready to move up. There's something wrong that I need to correct to feel in my own mind I'm ready.

Again, personal belief.

Over the last 14k hands you are winning at 17bb/100 (as you say in above post) so it doesn't matter that you have lost 14 pots of over 100bb. You can't win every pot as they say, losing pots is normal due to beats/coolers/mistakes/running into the top of fish's ranges etc, as long as you are winning overall that's all that matters.