Thoughts on "moving up"

I'd like to say i'm a veteran at playing poker, as much as my age will allow me, an intermediate at studying it, but somewhat of a novice to online poker, and a complete newcomer to FTR forums, and I had some observations.
I've found that in terms of finding the easiest and most profitable games, the 25NL is easier than the micro tables, the 100NL easier than the 50NL, and the 1000NL easier than the 400NL and 600NL.
I still play a wide spectrum of the games, including the micro, depending on how wily I feel or if I feel like blowing off steam, and have a hypothesis concering this observation.
It occurs to me that 25NL, 100NL, and 1000NL seem to be "entrance points" where people will come online and feel like throwing money around, and directly at you ideally. 25NL because that is the minimum on most servers, and 100NL and 1000NL because they are nice round numbers for the more wealthy to throw money around. The games in between seem to be filled with players who have "moved up" and are serious students of the game, playing much more conservatively, but not weak. I was wondering if it might not be better advice to players to not look at moving up in games as a precise mathematical formula, or to stay put at a limit where you are comfortably beating it, assuming you are a serious student of the game but don't have pipe dream aspirations of becoming a poker millionaire.
Has anybody else made these same observations? And if so, do you share my same hypothesis as to why?

Strictly from the point of view of a forum reader…I have often heard people say the 25NL and 100NL games are soft. In particular, I have often heard people describe the 100NL as softer than the 50NL. Your hypothesis as to why this is, is a sound one I think.

So do you think I should skip NL200, NL400, and NL600 and go straight to NL1000?

I actually did notice this with the move from NL25 to NL100...I basically skipped NL50 because the game seemed a lot more difficult there.

Why would 50NL be more difficult than 100NL?

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Why would 50NL be more difficult than 100NL?

Originally Posted by SonOfAkira

It occurs to me that 25NL, 100NL, and 1000NL seem to be "entrance points" where people will come online and feel like throwing money around, and directly at you ideally.

Originally Posted by EricE

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Why would 50NL be more difficult than 100NL?

Originally Posted by SonOfAkira

It occurs to me that 25NL, 100NL, and 1000NL seem to be "entrance points" where people will come online and feel like throwing money around, and directly at you ideally.

Why is 50NL not considered an entrance point?

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Why is 50NL not considered an entrance point?

Your guess is as good as mine. Mostly, I would think, because $1 is a nice even figure to have as a blind.

nah

NL $50 is a rock garden. Hard to extract any kind of cash out of these players. I have never played NL $100 online, but in a B & M, it is extremely loose. Sit back, play TAG, and collect. This is because the fish have no choice..NL $100 is the lowest a casino will offer. I am going to cut way back on online play after building bankroll up to 2k, and spend more time in the fish pond with higher stakes.

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

nah

Yup, NL50 is filled with the "graduates" of NL25.

Most players start at one of two levels, NL25 and NL100. I've never heard the "I'll go ahead and start out at NL1000" line before, but there's a lot of truth to his statements.

$50 is not that bad of a game.

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

So do you think I should skip NL200, NL400, and NL600 and go straight to NL1000?

I actually did notice this with the move from NL25 to NL100...I basically skipped NL50 because the game seemed a lot more difficult there.

When I played alot of NL cash, I felt the exact same way. I played underbankrolled for a little while at 100 NL and realized,... hey this is really easy.

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

So do you think I should skip NL200, NL400, and NL600 and go straight to NL1000?

I actually did notice this with the move from NL25 to NL100...I basically skipped NL50 because the game seemed a lot more difficult there.

Well, you still want to have the bankroll to play comfortably, psychologically comfortably, at whatever limit.
And most important, i'm fairly new to the online poker phenomenon, and have a limited variable pool from which to cull this data, they're more loose observations than anything else, I'M not giving concrete advice to anyone!
The psychological hit you can take from losing $75 at a NL1000 table from tossing around a few bets can be enough to tilt you off your poker skill, if you're not used to throwing that type of money around. It's like, $75 is a nice session to make at a 25NL table, but you just lost that with a PFR that you had to abandon. Likewise when you win a $200 pot at this limit it can be equally unnerving. What I'm saying is that I noticed the different limits aren't as rigid as moving from JV to varsity in a sport, as some posters on this forum seem to dogmatically adhere to, and was wondering if anybody noticed. I didn't notice a significant difference between NL400 and NL600, and noticed some incredibly fishy plays at NL1000, which I thought could only be chalked up as whale behaviour.
A prime example is that I posted a bad beat hand somewhere around here that I took at NL10, because it was so incredible and amusing, and was somewhat foreign to me, in the sense that these are plays you'd very rarely see at a B&M or even home games i've played in. Though i'm sure everybody is aware, unless their play has been strictly online, the "lottery ticket" phenomenon, %100 percent seeing a flop and five way showdowns is something bizarre.
I was even just thinking that these players who've said "working my up in 5NL or 10NL" might even be hurting their game seeing so much of this.
Just some thoughts, I apologize for the verbosity.
The "entrance point" hypothesis was merely based on the notion fishy players or whales might flock to powers of ten. There is no NL10000 that I've seen but that would be a hell of a thing, maybe Mark Cuban or one of the "girls gone wild" guys would throw his pocket change to you if you could comfortably stake it.

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

nah

Yup, NL50 is filled with the "graduates" of NL25.

Most players start at one of two levels, NL25 and NL100. I've never heard the "I'll go ahead and start out at NL1000" line before, but there's a lot of truth to his statements.

UG, before you get me into trouble, I'm not suggesting anybody cash their student loan and start playing at NL1000. I was underbankrolled by even the most liberal of standards messing around there. You just have to have some sort of experience pushing around stacks like that, or grow up rich.
The main observation came from when i was multitabling (another phenomenon that revolutionized poker) a NL10, NL25, and Nl 50 table and was having the most trouble on the lowest limit, mainly because of the weirdness. I then dropped the NL50 and went to an NL100 and found things much smoother than any of the above. Playing at that limit actually took me off of a mini-tilt.
Plus, it took a few days to get comfortable with an online interface before experimenting with any higher limits. There was an $85 misclick. The call (AI in this case) is right next to the fold in all these rooms. Let's never speak of it again.
I'm really just afraid that something I said sounded halfway intelligent and somebody is playing NL1000 as we speak, pushing around those stacks, and now it's on my head because what I said was misconstrued!
Eek!

Originally Posted by SonOfAkira

I'm really just afraid that something I said sounded halfway intelligent and somebody is playing NL1000 as we speak, pushing around those stacks, and now it's on my head because what I said was misconstrued!
Eek!

Yeah, I took my $1600 BR to the $1000 table yesterday. I didn’t do too badly though, down about $600 bucks. But it’s all good.
















p.s. I am totally kidding.

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

So do you think I should skip NL200, NL400, and NL600 and go straight to NL1000?

I actually did notice this with the move from NL25 to NL100...I basically skipped NL50 because the game seemed a lot more difficult there.

I did the exact same thing. I did horrible at 50NL (rock farm), but I do quite well at 100NL playing the exact same game.

I started at 10NL, and I also found that 25NL was easier than 10NL because of the fold equity gained at 25NL (compared to 10NL, its a lot of equity)

looking for soft games is always a good strategy.
high % of player per flop and low buy ins is always a sure sign of a fish tank.

My bankroll is sitting @ $380 right now and playing @ 10NL. I've been there for only two weeks now and I'm already getting sick of the fishy bad beats there. Is this thread suggesting that I change to 25NL before I get to 50 buy-ins for 10NL? I was thinking of changing over either @ $1000 or $500... I'm so anxious to move up.... this feels like such a gring here @ 10NL - the same grinding feel I had while at 5NL.

Every level is a grind...But I love the feeling of getting closer to the next step. I work off of 2o buy ins before moving up. I would suggest moving up to 25NL when you hit $500.

Originally Posted by Lodogg

Every level is a grind...

I quit altogether then.

Thanks everyone for the help. I'm outta here. peace!

It's quite possible my biggest leak is cashing out

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Originally Posted by Lodogg

Every level is a grind...

I quit altogether then.

Thanks everyone for the help. I'm outta here. peace!

I don't know if your serious but if you can be bored while making money playing poker then by all means. quit. I love it though.

I agree completely with the original post.

The micro tables are full of players that are just starting out, with very little money that they don't want to loose, and are trying their best to learn

25NL has most of the fish, where most new comers take their first shot

50NL was pretty hard for me as well, I played there for about a week and moved straight up to 100NL, which seemed much easier. I believe exactly what UltGeorge said, NL50 has all of the "grads" from NL25, real students of the game.

NL100 and NL200 seem about the same to me as far as skill level is concerned, and they might both be "entry points" for new players. Just like a $1 big blind seems like an even number, blinds of $1 and $2 seem like even numbers as well.

I've played a little 2/4 and 3/6, (haven't tried 5/10 yet) but I don't have enough experience to comment on those. I would like to hear someone else with more experience comment on 3/6 vs 5/10 game though...

nice post

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

My bankroll is sitting @ $380 right now and playing @ 10NL. I've been there for only two weeks now and I'm already getting sick of the fishy bad beats there. Is this thread suggesting that I change to 25NL before I get to 50 buy-ins for 10NL? I was thinking of changing over either @ $1000 or $500... I'm so anxious to move up.... this feels like such a gring here @ 10NL - the same grinding feel I had while at 5NL.

Take their advice and move up at $500. You could hit that fairly soon. Though with my limited experience, if you do that well at 10NL, you'd be even better at 25NL.
For example, my first day playing, trying to get a feel for the controls, was at that 10NL table, and I remember this clearly, I raised o.50 out of UTG and got seven callers. That would be absolutely unheard at any higher limit. It is this silliness that allows you to beat the game, but take bad beats as well. You don't want everybody to be rocks with no action, but fold equity is very important.
However, does anybody think my notion that playing for long periods of time at that low limit you might develop bad habits, even while beating the game? Putting down extremely high raises just to drive out some of the junkiest junk might get you into trouble playing for bigger money. I don't know, just a notion, all of you have more experience than me at online poker, and online is the only place you'll find limits that low.

Lets say that you get your bankroll up to $500 and move up to NL25. At what point would you suggest moving back down to NL 10 if the player goes on a down swing? Would it be at $200 (2o buy ins at $10)?

C'mon, are you serious? 1000NL is an entrance point? You would know more than me, but just with my fairly good understanding of the world, I just can't believe that. It'd be really amazing though. Not to say there isn't a newbie in the mix using cash from his oil rich daddy, but as far as a regular entrance point? "Hmm, I'm rich. I think I'll learn poker. Let's start at 1000NL. Sounds good!" No way, lol. Seriously?!!!

As far as 100NL that makes perfect sense to me. B&M casinos offer 100 at their lowest. People are not afraid to start there. It's what they're used to.

Btw, Bill Gates plays 3/6 limit. No lie.

Originally Posted by Checkways

C'mon, are you serious? 1000NL is an entrance point? You would know more than me, but just with my fairly good understanding of the world, I just can't believe that. It'd be really amazing though. Not to say there isn't a newbie in the mix using cash from his oil rich daddy, but as far as a regular entrance point? "Hmm, I'm rich. I think I'll learn poker. Let's start at 1000NL. Sounds good!" No way, lol. Seriously?!!!

As far as 100NL that makes perfect sense to me. B&M casinos offer 100 at their lowest. People are not afraid to start there. It's what they're used to.

Btw, Bill Gates plays 3/6 limit. No lie.

Well, two things.
I was going to mention Bill Gates. A prime example of an absolute beginner starting off playing fairly high stakes. And the relative different between 5/10 and 3/6 is much less than .50/1.00 and .10/.25.
However, the main thing that amuses me, and I don't mean for that to sound like a flame, is the thinking that the world of online poker exists in a vacuum. Poker has existed for hundreds of years and online poker for, what, maybe 8 in it's current form?
A newb to online poker isn't a newb to poker. They would be, though, at a disadvantage, because one could go to a B&M every weekend for half a year and not see the sheer volume of hands unfold that you would playing for a week online, especially with the multi-tabling. So a low stakes player would have an advantage over somebody who has played poker all his or her life as a hobby but is still very decent, and has the economic fortitude to push around bigger stacks.
It ties in with the idea, and I guess this makes point three, that either one is a seasoned veteran or a rank beginner as your post would suggest. I personally have two friends, my friend and his wife, who do just this, fall somewhere in between, and play 5/10 on a somewhat regular basis. Both are very financially secure, extremely so, and are decent poker players. My friend's wife would actually be excellent if she didn't drink so much while she played. The point is that while the flood of fish might not be as great as at the micro levels, a thousand dollars isn't that much to somebody making well over six figures.
But none of that was really the point of this thread, nor was it to argue. I read a thread from a young man who talked about his incredible proficiency at the 2/4 game, but choked when he played the 3/6 game, mainly for no other reason than it was "moving up" a level. And when he got bad beat, he couldn't look at it the same way, he chalked it up to tricky big league skills.
I was simply offering up my concern for the devlopment of these players, and that in the quest to be properly bankrolled, which IS a neccessity, they find themselves getting verily psyched out into thinking the "next level" is filled with players who've passed a physical and mental skills test, similar to the navy SEALs, and that they're imposters, strangers in a strange land.
And really not even pushing any of my ideas, just offering up my little notions, based on my little online experience. That is all.

Good point. Not every player at every limit looks at poker forums (thank god). Some have never heard of bankroll management and play it for the thrill of the gambol, why do you think they have high stakes roulette? People who can afford it will often want to take bigger risks because of the bigger payout. I'm sure some of the $25NL players here could outplay a lot of the 200NL players, its just the average skill level increaces with the limit.

Originally Posted by Lodogg

Lets say that you get your bankroll up to $500 and move up to NL25. At what point would you suggest moving back down to NL 10 if the player goes on a down swing? Would it be at $200 (2o buy ins at $10)?

I've decided to move up to 25NL when I reach $500, because 20 x 25 = 500... using 20 buy-ins as my standard.
I'll play a session of a few tables, each @ 25NL. If I have a loosing session and I get knocked down to $440 or whatever, I'll play 10NL until I reach $500 again.

Bankroll management means that I will never deposit again !!!

BTW-The guys in my office loves your pic Bank. That is one sexy woman!!!

Oh the things I'd do...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit you at all. That wasn't the intent of my post. I was just expressing my shock that such a thing could be true.

So you're saying that 1000NL is not exactly a newbie starting point, but rather a place where you will find "casual" players that happen to be very rich. Interesting, I can't wait to get there then, lol.

Oh btw, last I heard Bill Gates plays 3/6 limit, not NL. That's a buy-in of about $200. Money is clearly no object to him so he just plays for fun. I thought that was bizarre, but it makes sense.