Kristy_Sea

From reading on this forum I've noticed that the general consensus is NOT to move up a level until you are beating the one you are at.

I've had a strange experience recently that contradicts this ...wonder if maybe its time to challenge the 'universal truth' above.

I started playing on a new site at the $22 sng ..and did very well. I was stepping down from $55 on my prev. site to get my "sea legs" on the new one-I think its fair to say I'm a competent player capable of results at that level.

A few weeks later I began playing a $5 sng against a friend every night, for fun...and- I've lost so many games at that level I received the distinct honour of being told I'm on 'Super-tilt' by sharkscope and lost my little shark-lol. I sincerely CAN NOT beat the $5 game..and trying to has almost become a sickness with me.

I've played LAG, I've played TAG, I've tried bribing the dealer..If I could figure out a way to show cleavage online; I would (meaning: I'm really bringing my A game)..and in the end some guy with k-7o sends me packing when he calls all in and hits a runner-runner miracle.

So, I'm wondering if anyone else would agree that not moving up a buy in or two only applies when you're at a level where you are playing opponents who generally apply some form of strategy to the game, and you have invested the time and studied to the point where you consider yourself a reasonable player with a grasp of the game?

I'm not convinced that failing a luckfest means that you are not a good player..and that the advice given to those players struggling at the low buy ins is good.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

STR82ACE

The low levels are just sickening with suckouts. Players calling garbage and hitting and then trash talking you by calling you an idiot for making the move and how superior they are. I got sick of it and went up a level earlier than I should have, and I have found that it benefitted me quite abit. I find the level of play better and the suckouts, although they still happen, are more earned than at the lower levels. When your aces get cracked by someone playing jacks and hits trips on the river...doesn't hurt as much as when some clown is playing K7o and hits he two miracle cards to beat you.

__________________
The man who invented poker was bright.
But the man who invented the poker chip was a genius!!

specialK

Have you tried a webcam?? lol jk... i always say you have to adapt to the level that you are playing at... $5 expect fish and suckouts, $55 expect some studied players and less fish, and hopefully less suckouts.

__________________
'weak tight' - 2006 Royal Cup Champions - Team Waterloo

Dorez

I think what you're saying proves exactly why you shouldn't move up in the limits too fast. Then again, I'm not the most experienced player, but here's my take on this.

Yea, you can play the 55's alright, but if you can't beat the 5's, you could be missing some skills to beat every type of player and become a more all around player. Each level of play has different types of players in each. At the bottom rung the 5's you have to play differently than the 55's because of the types of players. They all pretty much play the same, so you have to be able to adapt to play that type of play. I can't play my usual game (Friends tell me I'm a maniac, but it's just organized confusion) at the 5's, so I've been learning to adapt with the players at 5's. As I intend to move up each level, I expect to learn different styles of play and which styles to play in certain situations against certain players.

It seems that you can't adapt a different style of play to the play at the 5's, even though you can beat the 55's.

pkrfce9

I've never bought the argument that says move up in levels because the players at the lower levels are so bad you can't beat them. But I know how you can get that feeling after a few bad beats.

Myself, I play the $5 sngs sometimes when I'm not totally focused on poker as it is usually fun and passes the time. My ROI is surprisingly good. Maybe I make better decisions when I'm not worried about the $? I'm sure I play a pretty tight abc game since I'm not paying close attention.

At $10, my roi is good. Same story I think.

I have played a number of $20. Early results were good but recent results suck so I do drop back to $10 to rebuild the roll and confidence. I have taken shots at higher levels but I don't feel as comfortable online (i.e. stars is rigged) at those stakes so I don't try often. I guess because I'm not particularly focused on the game when it is online and there are so many other things to distract me at home...

As for guidelines, my first one would be to play at the highest level my bankroll could sustain. Sure, I may be confident I could crush the $100 sngs but too many consecutive out-of-the-money finishes would be a catastrophe. So if you have the bankroll and the confidence (backed up by an unbiased appraisal of your skill) play at the highest level you can afford. Playing at too low a level can lead to bad results as maybe you don't care about the stakes enough to truly focus? Second one would be to adjust for the table. At $5 i'm going to play against a lot of people who value TPWK early in the hand or chase runner-runner draws. So I can't fall too in love with an overpair and bluffing in some cases is a no-no. (Especially if I've shown the table a huge bluff in recent memory...)

One final point, it's hard to draw conclusions from a small sample size. You could be in one of the inevitable downturns we all go through. Having a sufficient bankroll should allow you to get through that without too much distress.

__________________
I can't tell you how awesome it feels to win a WSOP bracelet!

AcidJoe

Pkrfce summed it up pretty good. The one thing everyone always forgets you can always run worse than you ever expect. I cleared Doyle's room bonus for $135 playing $10-$20 SNG's and killed it for an $800 profit. I started to clear the Victor Chandler bonus the same way and got killed. They are both on Tribeca so the player level should be the same. The variance just caught up to me and put me back in my place. The lower the level the more people will gamble or just not care. I played a $1 SNG on prima for kicks and pushed 22 times in a row and took it down. The chat box was full of he's an idiot blah blah blah blah. The point is I didn't care. When my 6 7 suited pushed into the AA's raise and hit the straight all was good

Playing a week or two or whatever of $5 SNG's really means nothing.

__________________
Kristy, why can't we all just get along?

Kristy_Sea

Dorez,

I disagree..my point is not about adapting, its about finding the most profitable situation. It seems to me to be more advantageous to be against players one can 'outplay' rather than against players that are as AcidJoe put it are 'prepared to gamble' why reduce the game to something as basic as luck? I've been on the downside of the luck, but my point would be the same were I winning, I want to minimize the impact of luck/the cruel hand of the poker Gods, by pitting myself against players I can (forgive me for the vanity) outplay..and you can't do that to someone who hasn't really got a sense of the game and a desire to win (a type of player that would be more present at the $5) It seems to me it is more of a 'showdown' style at the lower limits, less about the finer points of the game and more about the stubborn insistance of taking a hand to the river and seeing who's been offering the right poker sacrifices.

And I'm not looking for a bankroll discussion..I agree with what is written. I'm simply comparing the different levels of the game and asking if in a vacuum the bigger games have a potential to be a more profitable place?

pkrfce9

in absolute $ terms and on an hourly basis, bigger games should be more profitable for better players. i think your argument also implies they would have less variance, which would also be desirable for someone who doesn't want to 'gamble'.

__________________
I can't tell you how awesome it feels to win a WSOP bracelet!

Kristy_Sea

"absolute $ terms and on an hourly basis" sigh

Yes Greg I know that winning third in a $55 is worth more than third in $5, but thanks for the reminder

I was referring to comparing a proportionate ROI- luck and showdown prevalent $5 vs. skill and strategy reliant bigger $buy in (and I'm not saying the 'all' games at said levels will play a certain way but AM inferring that the ave. of games would lean towards this, I think.)

BBC Z

You can either pay $50 to learn a lesson or you can pay $2500.

I'll take the cheaper one, thanks.

Also, your sample size sucks.

__________________
13Cards is the worst thing to happen to Canadian Poker ever.

Kristy_Sea

I'm intrigued by both statements..pay to learn what? And what sample are you referring to?

Kristy_Sea

look at that! Less than a paragraph..I was finally brief!

Kristy_Sea

oh man..I hope I'm cute enough to get away with being so dumb! I just realized that you were refering to my sample size on Stars. Completely fair, I didn't present ALL the information.

I predominantly play on Party, and have also for about two months now been playing on APlady. When I started noticing the pattern I mentioned on Stars and considering it I also looked back to my percentages in Party. I had two accounts: Here are the percentages in the money there too. (cancelled the first before opening the second.)
SNG (% of in the money finishes)
1) $6 = 31%
larger buy ins approximately 50%
2) $6=40%
Larger buy ins approx. 50% as well

Interestingly I notice a jump just going to the $11 [1)44% 2)48%] so I'm not suggesting that you must play a 22/55..I just wonder if it might be a good idea to get out of the very bottom buy ins..the ones that are really designed for people just figuring the game out- IF you've made an honest assessment of your ability and bankroll..and the only thing holding you back is the idea presented on the forum often that "you should beat level one to move up to level two etc", for the reasons discussed in earlier posts.

ScoobyD

For starters, don't gauge your success solely on ITM finishes, gauge it on your ROI. And secondly, yes there is a VERY strong argument for why you don't want to play the $5+$1's on Party as opposed to the $10+$1's...the rake.

AcidJoe

ScoobyD is right on in the ITM vs ROI assessment. During my most recent downswing on tribeca my ITM didn't change much 44% vs 40% but what did change was my ROI since it seemed I couldn't buy a 1st place. I had a crapload of 3rd's with some 2nd's and the odd 1st with a negative ROI. I also bubbled a lot of times which really hurts too.

That being said if you can't beat the party 10's I wouldn't recomment to anyone to tackle the 20's or better.

__________________
Kristy, why can't we all just get along?