So I know that the default response to this thread is going to be that I should move down limits and consider myself lucky, but I think the past several weeks warrant at least some discussion.

I have always been a hobby, breakeven poker player. I'd play off and on, depositing $50 or $100 in some poker site and playing with it until i either went busto or ran it up high enough to withdraw a significant amount, then i went busto. Lately, though, I've been taking a more serious approach to the game. i've been reading 2+2 a lot, read several poker books that I believe have helped immensely, and I've been taking a more serious approach as far as the actual funds I played with. I deposited $200 on bodog and decided that I was not going to withdraw simply to make sure that I didn't lose my buyin. I also decided that I was not going to play above my limits, which was a major problem for me in the past. I deposited 200 and was going to stick with NL10 until I had 25 buyins for nl20. I ran that up to 350 but could not stand bodog's software anymore, so I withdrew from bodog.

After that I decided to try out Cake, as I had wanted to try it out in the past, and I didn't want to do FTP again because I already have an account on there and I didn't sign up for rakeback and didn't want to go through the hassle of trying to upgrade my account to include rakeback. So I signed up for Cake with rakeback and deposited the $200 again with the same rules as bodog. No withdrawing to save my buyin, and no playing above my limits. I was very adamant about this, and for the first week and a half I stuck to it. I played a lot, but only ended up losing. At my lowest point I got down to $70 from my initial $200 buyin. That night I got really extremely frustrated and ended up buying into a NL50 table (yes, a very bad idea). I played tight and lucked into a hand where I was up against JJ and ATo with my AA. The flop came T high and both of them got all-in and my AA held up for a ~$170 pot putting me at almost exactly my $200 initial buyin.

I quit for the night after that figuring that for once I could quit while I was ahead and that I would reevaluate my situation the next day. The next day I went back to the NL10 tables at first, but after getting a couple buyins donked off me, I reluctantly bought in at a NL50 table again. Since then I have proceeded to run my account up to the ~$570 that it is at right now playing almost exclusively NL50 1 table at a time (as opposed to 2-4 tables of NL10 at a time) in about 2 weeks. There have been downs- at one point I dropped down to 225 after breaking the 400 barrier, but that is the worst that it's gotten. I have cleared $110 of bonus money, and gotten $35 in rakeback, so all things considered I have made about $225 of profit playing NL50 above my limits in the last couple weeks playing about 2 or 3 hours a day of 1 table at a time. Cake says that I have been dealt about 11k hands, so I know that's not exactly a huge amount of hands so that I can declare myself a winning player, but I think that it at least warrants discussion.

I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you think it is feasible to be a significantly more profitable player at a higher limit? If it is, is it worth the increased chance of busto caused by playing with as much as 12-15% of your bankroll at once?

All that being said, if i continue to win, I do intend to stay at NL50 until I have sufficient buyins for NL100 (25 or so), as I find NL50 much more beatable than NL10.

Sorry for no graphs or anything, I couldn't find any software that supports Cake.

A lot of play at every stakes is ABC for those stakes. Thats because people(regulars) have discovered their strategies and now there is a lot of rise and repeat.

So its is quite possible that your playstyle has certain elements that make it better suited for certain stakes.

however there is no way to tell the same, and thus this entire analysis would be pointless.

The answer to your question is that it depends.

Yes its possible that you win more at NL50 then NL10 but before you can answer the question why it is so your probably not yet an winning player on either stake.

microstakes NL10 people play all kinds of trash they call alot and slowplay their monsters and when they do wake up and starts to bet they arent bluffing and they never respect your bets and raises.

Lowstakes NL50 People tend to play stronger hands still they overvalue Ax and broadway cards and all kinds of hands that can hit a straight. They do bluff sometimes even tough the straightforward and passive style still is dominant they tend to respect your bets and raises more.

So considering these two levels and generalization of the playertypes what should your strategy to the game be on each level? You should defenitly not play the same way.

I loled hard
You play fullring ? I think not even for fullring 4 stacks down is a serious swingament. (Did you ever have a downswing?)
And no 11k hands do not warrant a discussion. And no there is not an imense difference between NL50 and NL10 you beat both best with the same strategy... ABC poker.

I'm glad you're loling hard. Perhaps i should point you in the direction of bbv?

Either way, yes I have had downswings, and I think it is terribly ignorant to say there is no difference between NL10 and NL50. As far as beating both with ABC poker... congrats on regurgitating one of the most overused cliched lines on 2p2.

Yes, ABC poker beats NL10 as well as NL50. It also probably (i say probably because I have not played at these stakes and freely admit that) beats everything up to NL200 if not more.

Also, for reference, I don't play full ring I play 6 max. 6 max has significantly less variance, in my experience, which has been key to the run that i've made.

I think you misinterpreted my post. This is not a brag post. I understand that winning a little bit at NL50 is nothing extraordinary, and that it's not even close to a large enough sample size to say that the results I am getting are indicative of my skill at this point.

If you have zero concern for increase going broke risk, then playing limits where you can only afford one buy-in has the highest dollar amount profitability.

Yes you can make higher dollar amounts by playing higher limits, but it is up to you how you wish to manage your bankroll.

Your are right ABC poker can beat everything up to at least NL100
But 6 max has definitely more variance then fullring dude (you cant experience this 1 tabling, playing 11k hands until now...). Surely there is a small difference between NL50 and Nl10 but its nevertheless still filled with donks. I didn't want to say there is no difference at all but there is none that is so significant, that you would have a higher winrate on NL 50 then on NL 10 longterm, based on your playstyle. You still cant bluff because people still call down a lot and way too light even the "regs" on NL 50.

First off, the variance 6 handed is substantially greater than FR. Much more blind stealing, position raises, etc, people trying to make plays and donkeys hitting their 64 from the big blind to crack your aces from the button. Secondly, I think the reason for your success has more to do with you playing one table at a time versus the changes in blinds. I mean, if you can't beat NL.10 it doesn't make sense that you could beat NL.50. I currently play NL.50 on three sites 6 handed and FR and began way down in the depths of NL.10, so I can understand your scenario quite well. If I were you, if you're really serious about buiding your bankroll (and not having to risk too much of it at any given time) try going back down to NL.10 and maybe only play 2 tables and work your way up to 4 or so. Multi-tabling is talked about a lot but it isnt something you can just do. It is a skill just like anything else. Lastly, don't underestimate the differences in variance between levels. I can remember a time where I ran like gold FR and so awful 6max at the exact same time. Things like that can happen so this current success may be Fool's gold. Not doubting your playing ability man, just something to think about. Good luck to you.

I lol'd.

Gj on the heater, you'll go broke soon

Alright, so let me get this straight. 6 max, where you showdown less hands, which only favors the better players, has more variance?

Seriously, though, this isn't bbv, if you don't have something relatively constructive to say other than "lolheaterbustoilol'di'madouchebag", just don't bother.

Winning at NL50 and loosing at NL10 is much possible if you dont change your style of play in between.

Then if you move up to NL100 you will probably have problem to beat that.

I mean your style of play may suit the NL50 segment. Your starthand choices and valuebets and bluffs fits in the NL50 segment but it doesnt work at NL10 and probably not at NL100 either but to truly become a winning player you need to understand why you play certain hands in certain situations and when you do understand this you have the potential to become winning on any level your bankrole can cover.

Then as many said you probably increase your bb/100 when you play just one table.

Well I would say its a pretty big difference between NL10 and NL50 I have moved up from those stakes recently and have played NL100 for some while but during a 3 months downswing I accually went down to NL10 again (hoping to loose less in my downswing) and I discovered that the playstyle I had been adopting didnt work at all at this level.

Thats why I say you can be winning at NL50 but NOT NL10. But that is if you dont change your style of play. If you adjust your style of play for the conditions in NL10 you will achieve far higher bb/100 on NL10 then on NL50 but if you dont understand where the difference lies and are unable to adjust your style of play this wont work.

These exact condition shifts between NL10 and NL50 we have as an generalization accually occurs frequently between tables at the same stake to so this adjustability is a necessity even if you stick to the same stake to be a consistent winner.

So you can keep playing NL50 as long as you win but to become a better player you need to understand why you win more at NL50 then NL10 and its not because its easier to win at NL50.

I pulled up FT and took a look at the table averages 6max.

NL10 Players to see a flop ~38-55% av pott 8-30BB
NL25 Players to see a flop ~25-45% av pott 6-24BB
NL50 Players to see a flop ~30-40% av pott 6-30BB
NL100 Players to see a flop ~23-36% av pott 6-22BB

You see the ranges people play tends to be tigher less pots get to showdown the higher you get. Naturally you will find more semi competent and competent players the higher you play to.

at

Yea, I think that hits the nail on the head. I think the reason more than anything that I didn't do very well at lower limits is that to win at those limits, in the long run you really just have to go for nut peddling because people don't laydown anything. Now that will certainly lead to some serious payoffs with hands like tptk and such, but it also introduces a lot of variance because

A) You rely more on the cards that you're dealt to win money, so going card dead for a long stretch it shows on your winrate a lot more than if at higher levels where your $won without showdown is going to be higher.

B) You're less inclined to throw away TPTK like hands, so when someone DOES have a monster or rivers a sneaky 2 pair on you, you're going to pay them off big time.

Those are some of the main reasons why I absolutely hated playing at low limits, and why I think I can win more consistently at higher limits- for instance, i just bet someone off their tptk at in a raised pot at nl50. There is no way that would have happened at nl10 or nl25.

"I have always been a hobby, breakeven poker player."

"Yes, ABC poker beats NL10 as well as NL50. It also probably (i say probably because I have not played at these stakes and freely admit that) beats everything up to NL200 if not more."

Based on the first quote, I am speculating that you can well afford $200. Your life does not depend on poker which means that all that bankroll jargon doesn't really apply to you because you don't need 20000 to play 200NL so that if you go bad, you can still pay for rent. You can already pay for rent and like playing poker for fun.

Based on your second quote, since you can afford it, you can afford to measure your skill to stakes ratio until you get donked super hard. If you think your game will beat 200NL, play it. Why not?


"There have been downs- at one point I dropped down to 225 after breaking the 400 barrier, but that is the worst that it's gotten."

I think the smart-ass question everyone is thinking is, "Only 225?" or "Only 3.5 buy-ins?"

"I played tight and lucked into a hand where I was up against JJ and ATo with my AA. The flop came T high and both of them got all-in and my AA held up for a ~$170 pot putting me at almost exactly my $200 initial buyin."

Congratulations.

The question you have to ask yourself is "What if you had lost this hand?" because this was your ENTIRE bankroll bet on this one-hand.

6 max has more variance, heads up has even more variance, you will get forced into more marginal spots. You are free to believe otherwise though.

I think the reason you think its lower variance is exactly because it favours better players. Better players will win more in 6max then FR, so if you have a big enough edge over the other players at your level, this can counter the downswings

Given players of roughtly equal skill, they will experience larger variance in six max than FR, tis a fact.

BRM is the issue here, not difference among limits and styles. I stick by the ferguson approach myself, so no more than 5 percent of BR at any table... at 50NL with yr bankroll you are headed for disaster when the cooler hits...

sample size imo

what would you say is a reasonable sample size to make conclusions about a certain level?

I think i figured out your problem now. You don't seem to give a raising fish credit. With TPTK you can easily pot any street and get called down by the fish. But if the fish raises you are toast. This applys on NL10 and on NL50 aswell. Congratulations that you bet some one of a TPTK (did he tell you that? ) even if you did you cant play for non showdown winnings at NL50 because the majority of players will call you down too light.
Play 500k hands on a limit and you should be able to say if you are a winning player (though up and downswings still have a big effect on your shown winrate)
Oh and by the way NL50 is still a low limit. I think its under Microlimits in the forum (not without reason).

not 11k, lol and you included rakeback and bonus wat

It's probably because I haven't adapted my strategy properly to fit the game but I've also found that I have the greatest edge at small stakes, as opposed to micro. NL100 6max is my best game.

It's my impression that those players are the easiest to read. In general they play the way they think they are "supposed" to, but lack some of the aggression and sophistication of higher stakes players.

As for microstakes players... I just don't have a clue what they are up to most of the time. Perhaps more experience of micro is what it takes to "get them" but I just get frustrated playing calling stations. Where's the fun in that?

Couldn't have put it better than this man did.

You are just running good or are the players that weak on cake? I'm just asking, because You are basically never getting AT all in on T high flop even at 25nl unless they are a shorstack and bought in for 5. It seems to me like you over value hands expecting weaker hands to call that will not normally call or thinking a raising had could possibly be weaker then it actually is at any level. It is possible to run hot for a few buy ins. I see fish up three buyins at one table all the time. That being said does cake take American players? The play there sounds real weak.

Move up to where they respect your heaters imo