So, gave myself another shot at 25NL, figured I'd just do 2 buyins.

Little time in: lose set under set.
Some decent pot in between won (incl flopped set > AA). Pretty much even, then:
AA vs KJ in 4b pot on turn KQx-x gii, river J.
Figured meh, ill just sit out next bb and only play decent hands.
Top set < turned gutshot straight. (guess I got it in bad here As5s called in sb and called decent cbet on Tc4c3h)
AA<AKo aipf (2nd time in a row my AA go down to AK lol)

So yeah, not that much of a succes.

You've really gotta go with at least 5 buy ins for a shot. 2 is just too low

Yeah Imma go back later, just thought for today a quick sess with 2 buyin stoploss was ok. Turned out to be 3, meh, back tomorrow Or maybe later tonight.

Why are so many players blinded by this missconception.
Say u are 10NL player and u got $500 roll.
U decide u want to start taking shots at 25NL but first u want to earn another 5BI so u continue grinding ur ass off. Soon u reach a point in time when ur roll is $550. Lets call that Point P.

U continue grinding 10NL, until u make $625. Now u finally start taking shots but things dont go well so u lose 3BI. (Point R, roll is $550 again) Since u got two more BI for shot taking u continue playing 25NL.

In point P and R your bankroll is the same but for some reason in P u decide to play 10NL and in R u decide to play 25NL. Its not logical at all - even more if u take into account that you were "upswinging" in P, but "downswinging" in R, meaning that your game/confidence may be worse in R than it was back in P.
As soon as u got $525 u should fire up a 25NL table.

You're all welcome.

That's not really the point of it though. If you take a shot with 2bi you just aren't giving yourself any sort of leeway and can lose that very quickly without doing anything wrong. It can affect how you play and it can be very easy to have a few 'failed' shots which are really nothing of the sort. You also aren't giving yourself much of a chance to get used to any differences in play at the higher stake.

I don't even know how you'd realise when you were down 2bi. You'd need to be constantly checking your results throughout the session.

Its not like we are switching from omaha to badugi so we need ages to get accustomed to it. :P
"Failure" is inevitable part of the process. Personal discomfort doesnt change the math.

Lets go into somewhat more extreme example.
We wil be using the same numbers.
On your way up you will be playing 10NL with a $620 roll but on your way down you will be playing 25NL on a $525 Roll.
Its plain stupid.

To be honest, I've no interest in getting into a lengthy discussion with you about it. It's just not worth it.

Fair enough. I had nothing more to add anyway.
Presenting arguments in one and the very next post saying I dont feel like discussing is kind of odd but your fullest right.
Id like to know one thing though. Do you disagree entirely with what I am saying or only partially?

Cheers!

Tbh I think there's not really any right or wrong answer when it comes to how to move up. Some like to take a risk with a shot when they have just 15 or 20BI at their next limit, others like me are more conservative and prefer to wait until they've built up a roll with 30, 40 or even 50BI at their new stake.

It all comes down to what suits you. With regards to number of buyins to risk in a shot, it depends on the relative size of your roll and also how mentally tolerant you are with regard to how much you can lose without feeling like your soul is being crushed. 5BI at 25nl is $125 or 12.5BI at 10nl, and for some people their game goes way downhill if they lose that kinda money. Considering that Ron!n posted a graph of losing 5BI ($50) at 10nl as if that was a downswing, I'm guessing losing $125 would be too much for him to handle mentally. So in his case, a 2 or 3BI shot seems more appropriate.

There are other players who will happily wait until they lose 10BI+ at their new limit before dropping down, because they do not care as much about losing that kind of money as it doesn't drain them mentally. So for these type of players it would make no sense to restrict them to a 2BI shot as they have the mental capacity to risk a lot more without letting it affect their game in a significant way.

So yea, just do what you feel comfortable with. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Err, that's a bit of an exaggeration. In fact I'm taking a shot now because the money I'm making doesn't make much of a difference to me, so I'm moving up to where it might start getting interesting (even though I'm not at the kind of 'bankroll' that a plenty of people say should suffice for this game). Doesn't change the fact that for a couple hundred/thousand) hands things were being quite brutal. I know that happens to every player in the long run, didn't expect everyone to go all anal about it but whatever.

Agreed with Oro that there's a bit of an oddity in the shot taking and when to do it, but still feels like you should maybe have some stoploss point for when things turn bad (probably more so when you're playing bad and losing rather than just drawing the short straw). Depends on your specific goals/mental state I guess.

Fully. You're taking a very narrow view of it.

What I wrote down is no matter of opinion or perspective or anybody's "2 cent". Using certain roll for a lower limit on way up, and the very same roll on a higher limit when on way down is completely ilogical.

If u live by the 100BI rule u are rolled for a certain limit when u got 100BI.
As soon as u save up one BI for the next limit u are free to take a shot with it. You are at no point underrolled. Its only beneficial to establish yourself at the higher stakes ASAP.
Waiting until u got 5bi is something someone sometime came up with and today almost everybody lives by that "rule" not even pausing for a second to question it. Even out of box thinkers like you - your view after all according to you is not as narrow as mine.

I apologize for my narowmindness. Also I stop contributing/sharing anything i may find useful or interesting to this thread. If in a year of time I did not manage to be right even once (even partially)- while really trying - im giving up.

^ Why does being right or wrong matter more than learning things? I would hate being right all the time because it would mean I'm not learning anything.

Honestly everything is a struggle with this dude. I can't tell if he is just always overachieving or if he is in some desperate need for acknowledgement by internet people like well, me.

Just like Tom tbh, ooh dont bother replying, go eat a dick.

I am always right and I love it.

In that case I'm very glad I never was right on 2p2

Dont get me going :P
Being right is the direct consequence of learning. The more U know the more u are able to prove your point.

Lawyer A tries to convince a 12man jury of his clinets innocent and succeeds in convincing them all.
Lawyer B manages to convince only 9 of them.

What does this mean?
Lawyer A did maybe not learn too much along the process while lawyer B learnt a valuable lesson.

What you are saying is you would rather be lawyer B so some day you may become as good as lawyer A.

Being right all of the time (if thats the fact) among a certain group of people only means that one maybe should look for other people to hang out with.

why the ****ing pokerstars step sounds after every ****ing bad bet!!
i´m starting to hate this ****ing ****!!!!!
is a part of the new vip program???

U can mute that sound in the settings - recently i just had reinstalled everything on new pc, scared the shi* out of me.

i´ll do that...it have an amazing bad bet timing!!


can´t find it

Haha, classic Tom.

God he's a patronising little **** isn't he.

The weird thing is I genuinely believe he has absolutely no idea what he's doing or how its perceived by others. As much as we hate him he really is just a weird, little, awkward kid.

Still, duck off Tom.

I removed 50z/50nl from my lobby, plan to play exlusively 100nl+ from now on,
first reg table session was fun, was overbluffing in a few spot otherwise was enjoyable, did run good towards the end. play around 6-7tables on average, felt the pace was rather slow.
How many reg tables are equivalent to 4 zoom? according to hands/hour I'm guess 8ish?

Poker Stars $10.00 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 2860469
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

BTN: $26.58 - VPIP: 100, PFR: 50, 3B: 0, AF: 0.7, Hands: 2
Hero (SB): $19.05 - VPIP: 16, PFR: 13, 3B: 5, AF: 2.2, Hands: 220270
BB: $8.65 - VPIP: 0, PFR: 0, 3B: 0, AF: 0.0, Hands: 3
UTG: $10.00 - VPIP: 0, PFR: 0, 3B: 0, AF: 0.0, Hands: 1
MP: $11.42 - VPIP: 0, PFR: 0, 3B: 0, AF: 0.0, Hands: 7
CO: $21.56 - VPIP: 8, PFR: 8, 3B: 0, AF: 0.0, Hands: 12

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is SB with Q Q
3 folds, BTN raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $1, 1 fold, BTN calls $0.70

Flop: ($2.10) 5 7 J (2 players)
Hero bets $1.00, BTN calls $1

Turn: ($4.10) T (2 players)
Hero bets $1.96, BTN calls $1.96

River: ($8.02) Q (2 players)
Hero bets $5.10, BTN raises to $10.20, Hero calls $5.10

Final Pot: $28.42
BTN shows J K
Hero shows Q Q
Hero wins $27.14
(Rake: $1.28)

i'm such a pussy!!!, been roughly a year since i played though so wuteva.

Well, glancing at the lobby now Baade is 230 hands/hour and most most 6 max reg tables seem to be around 80 (though some as low as 50 or as high as 100) so I'd guess 4 zoom would be like 12ish tables.

Although at 25z FR I get well over 1000 hands an hour but playing 10-12 reg tables I struggle to get 700.

Its closer to 15 tables for me, although i do table select so that would slow the hands per hour down a bit when i only play around 60 minute sessions.