Trouble moving up in stakes

[Double-A]

Philthy, A winning player who has no money problems should play at the highest level that they are properly bankrolled for. As someone else pointed out, to do anything else is a disservice (sp?).

If you don't know how much you're beating your current level of play for (ROI, BB per hour, $ per hour, % ITM, whatever) then you should spend time figuring that out before you move up. KEEP RECORDS!

If you don't understand variance, how to calculate it, or how it can be used to help determine bankroll sizes for gambling games then you should take this opportunity to learn more about game theory before you move up.

It's not about "being ready" in any other sense than, are you a winning player and do you have the money to play?

I feel like I've been dishing out tough love!

 

[Richyl2008]

If your looking to improve I think having a database such as PT or Holdem manager can be very beneficial as was stated before.

 

[Richyl2008]

Play a shortish (30-45mins) session at 5nl and send all the HHs to a cash player willing to look over your hands and give you feedback. That way youll get a more insightful opinion on whether your ready to move up and advice on how to imrpove your game. If you cant find any of the resident Ring Game HA crew (you know who you are!) to look over your hands id be willing to do it.

Would anyone be interested in getting people to pair up for some session reviews?

 

[ph_il]

Never invest more than 10% of your bankroll in a single game.

Thank you. This is the best advice I've read in this thread and just basically ties up everything I'm having trouble with. Just a single sentence and all my worries have just disappeared.

Well, I've decided that I will start with 2nl and work my way up. I may be over-rolled for it, but I would rather start at the bottom and feel confident in my game before moving rather than starting at a higher level and worrying if I am able to beat it or not.

I dont have have PT or HEM, but will be tracking my games on a spreadsheet. It wont be as detailed, but I will keeping track of how many games I play, Buy-ins, Cash-outs, total profits, and # of hands.

Would 10K hands played be enough to determine if I am able to beat 2nl or should I aim for more like 30K-50K hands? I'm sure the more hands I have played, the more accurate account but what is the min-amount I should play before I figure out my BB/100?

 

[feitr]

10k hands won't give you anything like your true winrate, but it is a start at least. Over my last 1 1/2 months, i ran at >10BB/100 for my first 20k hands, and for the next 30k hands i ran at almost 20 buy ins below EV and just broke even during that stretch. Over my last 2 weeks i've had 10k hands where i am up ~$1100 even tho i still ran at over $600 below all in EV during that period. Long drawn out point being that you probably need in the region of 100k hands to have somewhat of a true approximation of your win rate, because you can see sick differences over stretches as "long" as 30k hands etc. But, unless you run really bad/good during a 15k stretch you probably should know whether or not you are a winning player at least.

I don't see why things like whether you have living expenses matter at all in this situation to whoever said that. I'm presuming that $300 probably isn't that big of a deal to philthy in the big picture, so whatever. For me at least, i keep poker money and real money COMPLETELY separate, except when i withdraw money out of my account into my main bank account and then it becomes real money and no longer able to be used for poker. So in that sense, if i lose $120 in a hand i don't start thinking "crap just lost a textbook" or stupid crap like that. I think the only problem becomes when somebody is playing poker stakes that are completely disproportionate to their living situation (struggle to make rent, but play nl1k or something) and obviously that isn't the case here.

On another note, get the free trial of pokertracker or HEM (use both one after another...gives you 2 1/2 months). You ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE THESE for cash games, so this gives you 2 1/2 months whereby you can get your bankroll at a stage that you can afford the $80 to buy them when the trials run out.

I'd advise you to play 2nl for a week or so just so you can get into the hang of cash play (playing deeper stacked and whatnot). Then unless you have lost money during this period, move up to 5nl and give it a go. Once you have ~10k hands, post your pokertracker/HEM stats and somebody will be able to point out big leaks if you have any (stats approximate after a much smaller sample than does BB/100).

 

[WVHillbilly]

Thank you. This is the best advice I've read in this thread and just basically ties up everything I'm having trouble with. Just a single sentence and all my worries have just disappeared.

Well, I've decided that I will start with 2nl and work my way up. I may be over-rolled for it, but I would rather start at the bottom and feel confident in my game before moving rather than starting at a higher level and worrying if I am able to beat it or not.

I dont have have Poker Tracker or HEM, but will be tracking my games on a spreadsheet. It wont be as detailed, but I will keeping track of how many games I play, Buy-ins, Cash-outs, total profits, and # of hands.

Would 10K hands played be enough to determine if I am able to beat 2nl or should I aim for more like 30K-50K hands? I'm sure the more hands I have played, the more accurate account but what is the min-amount I should play before I figure out my BB/100?

Forget the spreadsheet and download PT and/or HEM. There is no excuse for not using these tools. The fact that PT is free for 60 days will at the very least allow you to keep accurate stats on your own game. The info that they can provide on your opponents is a gold mine as well.

 

[Double-A]

I don't see why things like whether you have living expenses matter at all in this situation to whoever said that. I'm presuming that $300 probably isn't that big of a deal to philthy in the big picture, so whatever. For me at least, i keep poker money and real money COMPLETELY separate, except when i withdraw money out of my account into my main bank account and then it becomes real money and no longer able to be used for poker. So in that sense, if i lose $120 in a hand i don't start thinking "crap just lost a textbook" or stupid crap like that. I think the only problem becomes when somebody is playing poker stakes that are completely disproportionate to their living situation (struggle to make rent, but play nl1k or something) and obviously that isn't the case here.

Having 3-6 months of living exspenses (or more) in reserve is good for anybody. It's especially good for poker players who are trying to build or maintain a bankroll.

This reserve can keep you from going broke due to unexpected exspenses. Things like car repairs, losing your job, medical bills, etc...

How pointless is it to spend a month grinding out enough winnings to move up a level only to have your entire bankroll get eaten when your water pump blows?

Money is money. The money you win playing poker spends the same as the money you make as a dental assistant, janitor, congressman, or whatever...
If you don't feel that way then transfer $100 to my PStars account and I'll mail you $50 in real money.

 

[tenbob]

Philthy, play a thousand hands or so on nl$2. Then get your ass in gear and do a sweat session with one of the more experienced ring game players here, im sure there is a few of us that wouldnt mind doing it for an hour or so.

 

[feitr]

Having 3-6 months of living exspenses (or more) in reserve is good for anybody. It's especially good for poker players who are trying to build or maintain a bankroll.

This reserve can keep you from going broke due to unexpected exspenses. Things like car repairs, losing your job, medical bills, etc...

How pointless is it to spend a month grinding out enough winnings to move up a level only to have your entire bankroll get eaten when your water pump blows?

Money is money. The money you win playing poker spends the same as the money you make as a dental assistant, janitor, congressman, or whatever...
If you don't feel that way then transfer $100 to my Pokerstars account and I'll mail you $50 in real money.

That really doesn't make sense. There is a huge difference between going pro, where ofc you need alot of money behind you to be able to withstand rough patches, and between having a primary source of income and playing poker recreationally. Sure if you are struggling to make rent on a month by month basis, then maybe playing poker isn't for you, but 3-6 months, when we are talking about an amount as small as $300 is rather excessive. For most people, having a little cash in a poker account isn't going to affect their bill payment too much.

And yes money is money, but i think it is important to make a distinction between the two (although also very important not to lose site of the fact that you are playing with very real tangible money). The way that I look at it is that over the long run i will make money playing poker, and so if i lose what i consider to be a big amount in a day, i don't have to look at that and say "shit i just lost a tv" or whatever, because it is long term that matters. I'd spend some time thinking about making a purchase of say $300, but i also realise that i could certainly lose that amount or more in a given day playing poker, and that is something you have to accept. Otherwise you would literally drive yourself insane at times. That is what i mean by making a distinction between "poker money" and "real money".

That said, i have no dependents, plenty of liquid assets behind me, and i live in a place where living costs are quite high, and so $300 is probably alot less to me than to others. But again, we are talking about somebody moving up to like 5nl not 200nl, so living expenses really are not much of a concern at all.

 

[Double-A]

That really doesn't make sense. There is a huge difference between going pro, where ofc you need alot of money behind you to be able to withstand rough patches, and between having a primary source of income and playing poker recreationally. Sure if you are struggling to make rent on a month by month basis, then maybe playing poker isn't for you, but 3-6 months, when we are talking about an amount as small as $300 is rather excessive. For most people, having a little cash in a poker account isn't going to affect their bill payment too much.

Are you saying that having a savings account for unexpected exspenses doesn't make sense? Or, are you saying that needing a savings account to play micro-stakes poker doesn't make sense? I'm not sure what you're saying.

What doesn't make sense to me is sweating out a bankroll that can be wiped out when you have to put new tires on the car.