This thread also inspired me to take a shot at 2/5. Starting with a $1000 bankroll I had worked it up to $6300 at 1/2. I wasn't planning on taking shots at 2/5 until I hit 8k or 9k.

Given it was Super Bowl weekend (lots of tourists in Vegas) and I'm actually not going to be living in Vegas for that much longer (going back to school) I figured **** it let's take a shot. These would be my first sessions ever playing 2/5. Friday night went ok, ended up losing $250 but I felt I played really well and definitely would be a winner in the game.

Saturday night I made more money playing in a cash game than I ever have in one night ($1750). I ran amazingly well (had AA or KK 6 times and won big pots every time). Hopefully this spot of good variance can lead to me becoming a fixture at 2/5. I think I'm still going to play 1/2 if I play on a weekday and only hit up 2/5 on the weekends.

My observations about the differences between 1/2 and 2/5:
--A lot more preflop aggression. Limped pots were uncommon. Some players would limp for sure but almost all of the time somebody would raise behind them. 3betting was a little more frequent than at 1/2 but not incredibly so
--A lot more postflop aggression as well. People bet 2/3 pot to full pot when cbetting and cbet more frequently. There was also a good bit of playing back and stabbing at pots. People definitely tried to attack weakness.
--The buy-in rules are probably different everywhere but my usual place you can buy in for up to $300 at 1/2 and up to $1000 at 2/5. I had to adjust to playing with deeper stacks and I'm not sure I did a great job at this, I need more experience
--The buy-in range for 2/5 was also a lot wider. 1/2 is $100-$300 whereas at 2/5 it was $200-$1000. There were fewer tight-fisted shortstackers at 2/5 but the wider range of stack sizes meant I had to pay a lot more attention when acting, particularly preflop
--Due to all the aggression the game is I think much higher variance. I caught the bad end of it in my first session and the very very good end of it in my second
--Don't be afraid to change seats! The seat you're in is important at all stakes but at 2/5 I observed the player types were more at the extremes. That is, there were both more competent TAGish players and more terribad loose-passive and spewy LAGish players and fewer middle of the road players. When the extreme types of players cluster, getting to the right seat at the table is a huge advantage
--Bets had to be in increments of $5. I was a little embarrassed when I tried to bet $18. The whole table knew then that was my first time playing 2/5. I'm sure this rule is different based on the poker room but it seems like it probably would be the standard rule
--2/5 was a lot more fun to play because I actually felt like my poker skill was being stretched a little bit. I was journeying to the edges of my comfort zone and I think it will make me a far better player if I can maintain this momentum and log many hours in the game
--It was also more enjoyable because I felt like we were treated better by the dealers, chip runners, and floor people than 1/2 players

Anyway, those were my thoughts about 2/5 after having an incredible weekend. I really hope I can put in a few more winning sessions at 2/5 and move up permanently. I was making decent money at 1/2 but 2/5 is definitely the level where you can really start to make a living.

Yeah so this thread is making all of us take shots lol.

My bankroll is a little north of 6,000 and I'm slowly becoming a 2/5 reg.

I play in CT casinos and the game is much more aggressive and less sociable for sure, because the money is much more serious to most people. Also floor/dealers/staff treat you much better, or maybe that's in my head, seems like they do.

2/5 is also wierd because its now not uncommon to see greens/blacks and bills regularly used. Changes the game a bit.

I like it though!

I absolutely agree with this post in its entirety.

My last run, I took a shot at $2/5 with $3k, promptly ran it up to $7k, bought my kids an assload of extra Christmas presents, had some run bad, dropped back down to 1/2, and still ended up with more in my BR than I started with.

(sadly, pissed it away on some tourneys at the WSOPc, but that was my plan all along, so I'm OK with that).

If you have a full bankroll for 1/2, what['s the excess for if NOT taking a shot at the higher limits? I don't even mind waiting until you have $3K and taking a shot at 5/10.

You're not gonna hit the nosebleeds by grinding up, $15/hour at a time at $1/2. Gotta take some chances - just always make sure you have firm limits set if you miss your shot, so you are adequately bankrolled if you have to drop back down.

OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to take a shot but I'm already feeling nervous and excited (like I used to be when I started playing 1/2 at the casino)

for the people who have recently moved up or taken a few shots can I ask...

did you feel nervous when you sat down?

if so, how long did the nerves last and did you have any ways to cope?

did you feel more self conscious?

one of the posters said that he tightened up his range pre flop. Did any of you others play differently in terms of pre/post flop range, bet sizing, aggression etc?

I definitely felt nervous and more self-conscious when moving from 2/3 to 2/5. But, for me, this transition took place over a six-month period (moving back and forth, for various reasons, largely because, in retrospect, I hadn't fully worked-out my bankroll). It wasn't until I was fully committed to 2/5, with an adequate bankroll behind me, that I felt like I played my best without that self-conscious element. At this stage, I genuinely believed I had an edge over most players and knew which Regs to avoid in certain situations.

At some point, the nerves do dissipate, which comes from, I guess, playing well, which for you, might mean ultra-TAG or adjustable LAG. For me it meant calling bluffs light, 3-betting in the right spots, making the right folds, knowing when you screwed-up and why. When I first started playing 2/5 I definitely played ABC TAG with only 1-2 BIs per shot, which meant I waited around for sets or would limp-raise a lot with AA and KK. This strategy didn't work for long because I was soon labelled a "2/3-taking-a-shot" player and I stopped getting paid, except by the recreational fish. I also started getting bluffed by the strong 2/5 and 5/10 regs (which, I've since learnt, is generally a good thing and I now have better bluff-catching skills, although, unfortunately I don't always use them).

I believe it takes time to learn the player types and bet-sizing tells and with this knowledge you become more comfortable at putting players on ranges. Also you learn that if you are nervous, then the better players will notice and exploit you accordingly (often with the aim of tilting you over a number of sessions), so it soon becomes apparent that you won't consistently win until you deal with these nerves. Befriending other 2/5 regs helps an awful lot, and once you trust them, they can help with hand-analysis against specific players they've been playing for years. But, take care with what you say to certain people, because if you give them information about your hands, then, well ... it can be used against you.

Bottom line, though, is a firm understanding of your own bankroll, for without it, you'll always be nervous, unless you run like god---and I hope you do, until you run into me

So OP's 2/5+ games are drying up, and he's trying to get us 1/2 grinders to breast feed him lol

Tbh, I'm sitting on a 3.2k roll and I only play on occasion...once a month at most. But everytime I sit at a 1/2 or 1/3 table, I do feel like I should be playing higher stakes and there's an opportunity cost of me staying around the lowest limit in the casino. But risking 16% of my BR on a single session just seems absurd to me.

If ANYONE else finds justification for doing this and are in a similar BR situation, PM me plz. Because variance is teh pwnage

i play around 50/50 1-2 2-5 and have had a downswings greater than 8 bis..... it can happen and even if the RoR is calculated at <1%, tilt and loss of confidence or possibly other factors could contribute to these swings and in a game where your winrate and stdev can vary on many conditions it is extremely important to recognize RoR calculations aren't absolute.... just something to consider.

Even if you have a high win rate if you have a high variance style of play (willing to take marginal EV edges like +5-10 EV for a 1k pot) than you certainly should not be taking shots as decreasing from 8-6 bis is prob pretty scary (assuming people buy in for 300 not 200 @ 1/2 as thats becoming more and more standard for the 1/2 max). People should log their stdev and consider that highly in to @ what point they should take shots and just choosing a number is pretty bad.

Depending on table conditions 1/2 or 2/5 can have some total donks that its actually worse in both EV and stdev to play @ 1 over the other. You should definitely check out the 2/5 game before you move up. Some casinos i believe have 1-2/1-3 games so soft that it is actually an adjustment to 2/5 just in style of play if not skill.

Just some things from my experience. I think its important to note that when taking a shot they should not have more than half their bankroll on the table (so if you go up 1.5k+ on a 2.5k BR to start cashout even if the table is juicy as playing with that much money does increase your RoR dramatically as it increases your stdev even if it doesn't effect your play(unless some1s just reloading 500 and jamming every hand)). If you feel uncomfortable just leave and try some other time... could be the table/seat. I never refilled and I cashed out if I lost half (without losing all)... kinda nitty but I think it let me take more shots so it works out better IMO. (if table was really juicy I think I might have broken this). I always did my shots @ the best times like fri/sat night... just seemed like the best tables and gave me better chances. I started taking shots at 2-5 around 5-6k though and I wish I had tried it (less often but still tried) sooner. I actually didn't have success in my first 2 attempts but it encouraged me as I felt I played well and just ran bad. (I think i got my money in good just suck outs)

Sorry for the long post didn't mean to wall of text just thought it might be helpful.

I really enjoyed reading all of this, rereading a lot of it. Along with just being motivational it gets all of us to a collective agreement about being able to move up or build our financial poker bankrolls: If you want things you have never had, you are going to have to do things you have never done.

For me, not going lie, I am running through the end of a divorce. I could have went with lawyers, done all that, but I chose to mediate, use the brain we all have been given by whatever you happen to believe in, and save myself some money. I chose to deploy, make a bankroll that I will be able to use and I have a stable job. However, with that job, while it is great cutting back on my living expenses, still being able to save money, I know I am in a very fortunate situation than most in our country, and I do my best to not go out there and pick up every advantage military guys get and try to be a normal citizen.

With that being said, I am back in two weeks, and even before reading this post, I have noticed that we all have to take a critical look at what our situation is in life vs playing poker. When I was going through my divorce last year, I took on all the debt and had $8000 to play with. I knew I could play with that money, possibly do okay at 1-2(3) since I live in Las Vegas and the bus pass was covering me traveling down on the days I could play, but then I thought "Is this the type of failure I need to make right now? What about my child?"

Before I get a "cool story bro" comment, let me make it clear that being secure in life is something to go after, desire and want, in our relationships, with our families, and more importantly our friends. However, in poker, whether you have $3000 and want to take the occasional shot at 2-5 and are willing to step back down, or if you have $20,000 and a stable job and want to make consistent money at 1-2(3), some shots at 2-5, and understand that you need to restrict yourself and truly look at the best games (not just the one available at Venetian at 4 p.m.) possible, then I would say you are on the right track period.

My advice on numbers if you can do it:

$14-$16K BR, reserve $3000 at your access
Play majority of your 80+ hours a month at 1-2(3)
Consistently buy-in at 100BB stacks
Two bullets ($200 each) a day
Take $500 shots at 2-5 when available money is at $4000
Be prepared to go back down immediately if negative shot at 2/5
Play 2/5 within a few days after a win after looking at positive/negative aspects
Separate your life finances from poker finances, completely
Keep positive influences/write your experiences/work on relationships (quality over quantity)

Hope it helps, just a story and opinion

God live players are truly stupid, and ignorant to variance. Playing 2-5 with under 10k is beyond foolish, unless you are just playing for fun/recreation with hopes of winning a bunch, and if u don't that's cool too. But seriously maybe most/all of you should just put 1k on a blackjack hand or something, because you aren't "taking a shot" with 1 buyin or less, normally people "take shots" with like 5+ buyins at the least.

the 2/5 game at mohegan almost seems softer than the 1/2 to me (or at least, the players are just as bad but not nearly as nitty). I like it. I'll probably make it my main game once I'm done with the semester.

Playing 2-5, consistently, with 10K is foolish, agreed.

Playing 2-5, at all, with 10K is foolish, agreed.

However, taking a shot at the next level, with the discipline to go back down after a loss or a win and when you are confident and playing your best game, is up to the individual.

Like, playing with such small bankrolls in games that have way more variance than what you're used to, when you already are prolly way results oriented because you only have 10-15 buyins at your normal game, will make you question things you shouldn't and make you even more results oriented. And will greatly effect your happiness. I know what I'm talking about, I've played in games where I've had 5 or 6 buyins against really strong competition and lost, it sucks, idk maybe I'm wired differently and way risk averse now that I'm an old ass 22, but it's just so stupid to jeopardize your "career" even tho your career hasn't even gotten off the ground if you have <10k at a game where I've personally lost 10k in a week, and I don't think I was playing bad, just variance. When I was 21 I took a shot at 25-50 heads up, lost 50k and it greatly effected my happiness for a long time. It's just not worth it. Just grind out at least until you have 15k then take a 5k shot with it at 2-5, and mve back to 1-2 if you lose, and rinse and repeat. Yaking such life and happiness altering shots when it's almost completely based on variance is just so -ev. Ok, I've ranted enough, but unless you have a job, and are just playing for fun/side income if you win, don't take such crazy shots! I didn't get rolled for 2-5 playing way above my means, and I don't know any successful players that have, or any of my friends that have taken such a wild shot with their bankrolls. You don't get successful by wildly gambling, you get successful and able to support yourself by playing within your means and keeping yourself in the game long enough to realize the long term in one way or another

/rant

I agree with that, the problem is people aren't as disciplined as that 99% of the time. I know from experience of taking similar redic "shots" failing, not because I wasn't good, but because of normal variance, and it took a very big toll on me, and I just hate to see it happen to anyone else, or anyone else have to go through what I had to go through, I was lucky enough to meet friends who helped me and showed me the way, and put me back on the right path, but I know not everyone who takes a shot at 2-5 with 4k or whatever is going to have those same supportive friends, and they will just be ****ed. I want everyone to succeed as long as it isn't directly against me, but you don't get there by luck or taking shots, you get there by hard work and playing within your means

No, fully agree with what you posted as far as numbers go, and for me personally I am on the very very conservative side with bankroll, but I am fortunate now in my life to have the right bankroll. I know when I was trying to do it with $3000 it was not working out and that was partly because of BRM and partly because of just being terrible at the game and more importantly life. I actually think having 20K-24K is the right number to be running $300 buy-in stacks at 1-2(3) and moving into 2-5 about 5-10% of your sessions...it is perfect math wise as far as building up and not shot taking at 5-10 until 40K, and by then, you are in 2-5 at around 80% of the time, using your 1-2(3) sessions as moments to keep your confidence and notice the differences in aggression/strategy between the three levels.

The thing is that the 2/5 games a lot of people play in are of the same caliber as the 1/2.

If I took a huge hit I would move down, totally agree with oppurtunity cost being a big factor. It's not that easy to just grind out 7k at 1/2, the rake kills you.

I did it to start my bankroll up, but this was also because I was coming from online and knew I needed some exposure to live poker before I jump into a 500$/800 buy-in game.

I beat 25nl for 3BB online and I absolutely own the live games I play in. You shouldn't be scared to move up cause the comp is stiffer, I'de imagine 2/5 not being more difficult to beat at most places, just more gambly/bigger.

There are a few pros where I'm at, never really going to see a legitimate pro at 1/2, but even they have leaks. It's not that scary.

This thread actually helped me a lot and realizing that managing opportunity cost as well as good BRM are 2 key points.

lol, i remember some dude in one thread said he needs at least 100bi's for 2-5$..thats ridiculously overrolled

That was prolly me, and I've played poker for a living, and have friends that play poker for a living so I prolly have some idea of what I'm talking about.


Also, if you can beat 25NL you are the best player at all your 1-2 tables, and best player at 2-5, prolly like 80% of the time unless a better online player is playing or a pro is playing.

I'm curious about a point that I think has been overlooked...what happens if you win? Like completely destroy 2/5?

Say you have $2500, Take $500 and double up. Regular playing well could have your bankroll go from $2500 to $10k+ within a month...so do you just move up again? Take a shot at 5/10?

Do you just keep rinse and repeating?

I know this seems obvious but I'm worried that you could potentially be missing correcting leaks because you ran great and jumped up stakes extremely great.

I read this all the time on here and it puzzles me. Are you sure it's true? (obv you can't see every table etc but as a general rule)

I won $2.6k in 70k hands at 50NL online last year on a combination of deepstack on Tilt and then on 32 Red - a little more at 50NL TBH as included in that total is a small loss at 4k of 100NL. I've never worked out my BB/100 but I think that is something like 6.8 from the rough calculation I did.

I'm a winning player live at 1/2 as well, albeit the sample size is small because I'm an occasional player (30ish times a year) so I think I'm about $14an hour at about 160 hours since I've been recording it. (Sydney has $5 an hour table charge and 10% rake - ouch)


I guess my point is that while there are always soft spots on the tables, I don't feel like I'm streets better at all and I certainly don't feel like I crush the table - I make mistakes most sessions that lose me value and there are always other players I respect at the table and I never walk away thinking I'm better than them all.

I've never bought into the 'all online guys are brilliant, all live players are donks' process, because I've always seen them as different games.

You say you're a pro player so you know what you're talking about and I respect that. So when you say that a winning 25NL player is better than everyone at 1/2, do you really mean that or is it a bit of a throwaway?

if you do believe it, I don't know if this means I'm better than I think I am, that I play at a tough casino or (perhaps most likely) that I just ran really well online

for live cash games this is just too much IMHO, 30-40bi's is more then enough..were not playing 400 hands p/h doing 8 tables, were playing a single table were we put full concentration getting at most 35 hands.

i guess its better to be safe then sorry

i never really bought that bs either but i can see what he means,if you beat 25nl online then you have a decent concept of solid ABC poker which can be applied to live 1-2 which can prove to be successful.

other then that i think its a huge myth, i do not think 25nl reg can start playing 1-2$ cash games and start crushing them..yes the games are hella ****in soft but live cash and online cash is completely different on so many levels, live players play differently, the avg online player might spew his whole stack cause he hasn't seen AK in the last 2 orbits which he isn't used to when he plays more then 300+ hands in a hour.

live takes some practice & lots of discipline to beat imo.

I still have trouble adjusting to going hours without getting a hand.

I know your post is half finished, but from what you wrote so far, I would say I am just fully against this whole shot taking business at 20% of your bankroll when the lowest NLHE game you can play live, $1/$2, you only have 12.5 BIs for with a $2500 roll.

I'd say the right away is having at least 10K for 1-2(3) and being able to take shots, but come right back down, win or lose. You will be able to take more shots frequently doing this the right way than just winning and then thinking you can just go back and keep "murdering" it for a month straight.

I think 100 BI's is way too much, obviously, but 40-60 is a safe and solid number for a game you are consistently playing and maybe around 4-6% of the BR for something you are taking a shot at...just an opinion. It'll keep you playing awhile and you'll be able to handle the swings. I like something a little more conservative with some extra rules as incentives, but not everyone wants to be that distanced from their bankroll in terms of how many buy-ins they have.

Well I think the OP is saying that you should take a shot up front 1/2 because playing 1/2 long term is not winning in the poker life. You need to take that shot. We all have our own opinions here. My point is do you take a shot when you've accumulated enough to play, say 2/5? I mean, we should expand upon this theory to all stakes and not just simply 1/2 (which is where I think the OP is talking more specifically).
Why not take that same % of your BR and use it to take a shot at 5/10 (or whatever your next stake is) if you're playing 2/5? At what point do you NOT be aggressive with your bankroll? Or do you stay aggressive? Which staying aggressive to me seems like a high stress, high risk, non-payoff avenue. In which case, if you wouldn't do this at ANY other stake besides 1/2, then why do it at 1/2?

I think that would solve the discussion wouldn't it? We all know the games play differently, with better players (generally) as the stakes go up, but bankroll management shouldn't change should it? You should either stay ridiculously aggressive all the way till you hit X point or you should not do it at all.
If OP is simply arguing to take a shot from 1/2 because it's not where any poker player WANTS to grind, I can see the argument, but I think the counter-argument of never using this BR tactic ever again is the bigger issue. Did that make sense?

Everyone's opinion aside, I would say the "WANTS" emphasis is what it comes down to in the discussion of BR management. I may not want to "grind" 1-2 and find 2-5 more profitable but if I want to keep playing and not bust my bankroll, I have to be conservative at whatever level I am playing consistently. Also, same thing the other way, if I don't care if I bust my bankroll, on any given day, then I probably should not care to follow any criteria if I can beat a bigger game. I do agree with you that BR management should be constant across the board, no matter what level we are at, but why can't shot taking be the same? It can.

I am probably missing all the stuff you already wrote about the question I just asked, but just trying to say it better. I totally agree with what you said about "High stress, high risk, non pay-off avenue." Guys like Galfond and Dwan are exceptions not the rule. They chose to make aggressive moves, and Galfond adamantly talks about risking 1/7 of his bankroll when he was first trying to take shots, but he also talks about losing and coming back down immediately to rebuild before trying again. Others can do the same but if you look at your 10K and say to yourself "I don't think taking a shot at 10-20 today and possibly losing 4K is going to be okay with me" then maybe you don't need to be taking shots at all and just sticking with 1-2(3) and sometimes 2-5 on that roll.