The "10, 000 hours" rule generally applies to pursuits such as music and sports that require the formation of "muscle memory" to perform at a high level. While live poker definitely has an athletic dimension (lol), with the timing of bets and general emotional management of body tells and so on, there's a significant analytical dimension to the game, the quality of which, in my view, can be accelerated by intense and regular study; and, of course, there are far more resources available today, than, say, twenty years ago.

While it goes without saying that a sufficient bankroll (25BI+) is important, largely to withstand variance, I think that many underestimate the difference in playability between a 2/3 and 2/5 game. In Melbourne where I play, for instance, the 2/3 is capped at $200 (67BB), while the 2/5 is capped at $500 (100BB). With stacks generally deeper in 2/5, there's a different pre-flop dynamic, which causes many 2/3 players to struggle when "taking-a-shot". For this reason, a gradual transition from 2/3 to 2/5 generally works better, so that players have time to adjust and master the different playing conditions, which manifest, primarily, in betting strategies (it's quite noticeable that 2/3 players with significant online experience adjust better).

Also, what some are neglecting, perhaps, is how often a winning 2/3 player will successfully take a shot at 2/5, and say win >70% of sessions over fifty or so hours, and I think life is pretty good. But, eventually, the 2/5 regs work-out the new kid, and this win-rate drops. 2/3 kid subsequently gets confused, gets bankroll vertigo and drops back down if he don't go busto; occasionally the 2/3 kid gets advice from a 2/5 regular and re-emerges a winner. This is another reason for taking a slow-transition approach to moving-up stakes and for having a decent "taking-a-shot" bankroll (at least 5 BI, which should be less than 25% of your 2/3 roll, so you don't play scared).

Finally, no-one I know makes much more than $20 per hour playing a $200 capped game. The reality is that you have to move-up at some stage, if you want to be more than a recreational player. Better to do this a step-at-a-time rather than risking a huge leap, with little or no cushioning, if you happen to misjudge the distance you have to travel.

Nice thread

dgi,

You put more time and effort into your posts than almost everybody. Youre a great poster.

And I understand your emphasizing volume. Most people know its paramount, yet want to somehow discount it.

But still 1/2 is the hair at the bottom of my bollsack.

This is incorrect. The original works that were the basis for Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers (which is responsible for popularizing the "10,000-hours rule")

So while the concept does often apply to discussions about athletes, etc., cognitive pursuits and games certainly aren't excluded.

dgi....did you create that other thread yet? I have a lot more to say on this subject, but don't want to derail too much.

What's "fyp"?
Also, you changed my quote, which originally included a "with a $2,500 BR.".

I agree with op wholeheartedly . When I played 1-2 exclusively I would win 4-5 sessions an then lose 1.5-2 the amount of my past winning sessions in 2 losing ones. 1-2"s rake and comp rates suck. It's a game to play recreationally to make a few bucks for spending money . 2-5 can actually change your financial situation with a few good winning sessions. The players aren't that much better and the takes aren't really that high. Buy in for 400 (two average bis for 1-2) and take a shot. I personally prefer a mix of 2-5nl and 10/20 hi/lo. And the last month or two staying with these games have done far better for me than the past two years playing 1-2 have.

See, I have never played poker for fun. Its always to make money, money made me love the game. I read books and 2+2 before I even played holdem in a casino.

So I was taught, study the table, look what the average raise/3bet, table dynamics and how the good players combat the fish. Just simple stuff, so if you play cards like we(2+2) play we should be able to adjust to any game any limit.

You don't really have to adjust when you jump from 1/2 to 2/5. Only your bet sizing and a standard ep raise size. But that's it, over half of the 1/2 players on this forum could be 2/5 no problem. Their just missing the biggest aspect of the game .

It's shorthand for "fixed your post". It means they disagree with what you posted and they "correct" it with their own words/numbers

I wouldn't say my observation was incorrect---this is too strong. I said the rule generally applies to music and sports, but, I acknowledge it does include a few other domains, where extensive practice of cognitive skills, and subsequent neurological development, makes a significant difference (such as chess). Note that most of the activities you mention have an overriding physical component, with a high emphasis upon performing this physical activity under pressure (e.g. surgery, aviation, ballet, acting, music, all sport) and only a few are purely cognitive (chess and computer programming), which are probably the closest to poker. This quote from the article Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice sums-up the situation well:

"For appropriate challenging problems experts don't just automatically extract patterns and retrieve their response directly from memory. Instead they select the relevant information and encode it in special representations in working memory that allow planning, evaluation and reasoning about alternative courses of action."

This is the state we want to be in when playing poker under pressure and where the 10, 000 hour rule may apply. It what's psychologists call a state of "unconscious competence", where you just react to a difficult situation instinctively and don't freeze-up under pressure.

I believe the "unconscious competence" is only truly necessary without your conscious. This sounds obv but I think its true. Not to go on a tangent but I used to wrestle, got into a few fights, once was KO'd (lol) and woke up beating the dude in his face on the ground. Apparently, I was told, that I tackled (double leg takedown) him. This would be more along the lines of "unconscious competence". This would be unnecessary to playing profitable poker unless you lose consciousness at the table, which is not too uncommon.
I just don't see 10K hours being required when you can use your brain the whole time you play. "unconscious competence" doesn't apply to poker!

My local games are significantly different from 1/2 to 2/5. Skill level is way better at 2/5. Therefore I am a fan of the shot-taking to figure out the game and gradually move up. Although i find it a huge advantage to be unknown at the table. Since there are literally 100X 1/2 games opposed to 2/5 I doubt I'll move 100% to 2/5 locally until I am very proficient.

Great thread!

im a 1/2 player. i took a 1 buy in shot at 2/5 recently. i never played 2/5, i just wanted to see what it was like. i like it but i dont have that kind of money right now. i am ok with losing 100 on the 1/2 tables but im not so good with losing the rent money on the 2/5 tables.

it was fun, plus there were a few people at the table who were waiting to play 10/20 so they were kinda just throwin money around on the 2/5 table. it was pretty cool. i ended up having to go all in for my last 350 with an open end straight draw on the flop. there were 3 or 4 other people all in on the flop so it was about a 2k pot. that wouldve been a nice boost to the bankroll but i missed my draw. some 10/20 player hit his worse straight draw to win a nice 2k or so that he prolly didnt even need. i hate losin 500. back to 1/2 for quite a while lol.

theres my shot take story.

Glad you at least had the stones to put it all in with good equity. It sucks that you're paying rent with your $1/$2 money, and hopefully the craziness at your table has at least demonstrated the importance of being able to play at that level ASAP.

if your winrate is that low you should be more focused on away from the table work and less focused on gambling it up. 10/hr at 1/2 and 18/hr at 2/5 is low. Sure its decent compared to a wanna be, but real pros crush much much harder than that. Be able to make over 20/hr at 1/2 before thinking about moving up. Thats better advice.

Sorry, but if I can beat 1/2 for $10/hr and 2/5 for $10hr, you damn well better believe I'm playing 2/5.

It's like being offered the same job at two different companies, but one of them offers a higher upside. Why would you choose the lower capped option?

I'm sorry did you make a typo when you said 2/5 for $10hr? Because playing a larger game where you have the same hourly is going to increase variance and risk of ruin. If you're playing the bigger game because you want to play against better players and try to improve your game, I'm sure there is some EV in that.

I just think that the idea that you shouldn't think about taking stabs at 2/5 until you are crushing 1/2 for $20+/hr is absurd. Of course I don't think that 1/2 break even players should try to move up, as they would almost certainly lose money at 2/5. But if you are making a modest profit at 1/2, there's no reason you shouldn't take a shot at 2/5, BANKROLL PERMITTING.

If you follow proper bankroll management, your risk of ruin AT 2/5 should be ZERO. Why? Because you have a stoploss in place that forces you to move back down to 1/2 well before you ever go busto.

Sorry, Dr, you're right. That's my bad. I guess I sorta misunderstood what your were saying.

Great thread. I think I'm a BRM monkey or risk adverse to say the least.

So what would you do?

I have $3100 poker bank roll.
I have north of $50,000 life bank roll.

I've played over 5000 hours of limit hold'em in the 2/4, 4/8, 8/16 range and my results are I've lost $1000.

I've played almost 500 hours of NL and my results are:

1/2 $40 buy-in ($3.50 drop + toke) 370 hours @ +$6.26/hour
2/3 $100 buy-in ($5 drop + toke) 127 hours @ +$6.27/hour

They have a 3/5 where I play that's a $300 buy-in.

My go to game is the $40 buy-in. Does 370 hours at +3.125 bb / hour mean anything? Am I running like god to have not had all of my profit gobbled up by the drop?

I always think I should probably move up but I'm such a big pussy!

I've been playing NL since June '11. I went to Vegas for a week in December and didn't play one hand of NL. I played 4/8 limit hold'em and 4/8 limit O/8. What a pussy - I was scared to buy-in for $200.

I hate losing money but with such a large life roll and a descent poker roll it seems I should be taking shots with regularity. But I'm chicken.

Any poker psychologists out there?

What do you think I should do? I mean should I just take $9000 (30 buy-ins) to the 3/5 game 300 buy-in table. If I lose it all, then I'm obviously not ready for the 3/5 game.

I'm sick of hanging around in the cheeseburger stakes games and I think it's the drop that is most prohibitive in making a monetary break through from a couple thousand to several thousand and more.

You buy in for $40 at 1/2!?! and you make over 3bb/hour? You must be running good then, because for you to be averaging adding 17.5% per hour to your stack after rake, that's really good. For each of your games you're buying in short..

Yeah, cheers Anyway, your post opened my eyes to the gaming side of the 10,000 hour rule, particularly the relevance of chess. In poker, we're constantly running patterns through our memory banks---back-door draws, bet-sizing, foreseeing turn and river play, probability of players raising behind etc.---so, I guess the longer we play, the better we get at anticipating, "making moves" and dealing with pressure. Maybe, this is what players "taking-a-shot" might struggle with at first, particularly as table dynamics are often different at higher-stakes, as well bet-sizing tells and spread of player types. When confronted by this unfamiliar "feel" of the game, I reckon there's a tendency to freeze a little under pressure, causing the decision making process to get a little foggy. I noticed this in myself, when I recently took-a-shot at 5/10 and definitely played worse because of these factors (and remember doing the same on 2/5 when taking-a-shot). However, in the long-run, if you can work out your bankroll requirements, then it's great for your game, and makes playing more challenging. If you haven't sorted-out your bankroll, in a thoughtful, well-researched and organized way, then I reckon it just makes it so much tougher, because the fear factor will be stronger than it needs to be, unless, of course, you were just born with nerves-of-steel.

This is an easy game to push all-in, re-buy, repeat. You can re-buy yourself to death. On more than one occasion I've lost 10 buy-ins in one session. Never happen again though ... new policy = 3 buy-in limit in any one day.

Good motivation in thread.

I think what it really boils down to is opportunity cost (as quesuerte pointed out). It's what 1/2 grinders forgo playing 1/2.

Most 1/2 grinders are 18-25. Do you really want to spend your golden years grinding out $1/2 for $10-25/hr? If your thinking *Well yes, tmckendry, I loves the poker and would grind for $10/hr, I'm my own boss, and like, I'll get better slowly and stuff, and take 2/5 shots every third Friday*.. Then you have a gambling addiction, few prospects in life, and nothing I say will change your mind. If your thinking *Yeah, I could use my youthful energy to start my own business, or use that degree I got etc.* Then you should be taking $2/5 frequently.

I'd like to make the point that the higher a persons opportunity cost, the more shot taking they should take.

Great post and agree with you that you have to take shots

I have 500 hrs of live poker and my hourly winrate fluctuates 2-3$ depending on a winning a losing session.

Take your winrate with a grain of salt. The only thing I know for sure is I am beating the game.

This was a thought provoking post that encouraged me to take a shot at 2/5 and post about my experience.

Background: I've been lurking on 2+2 for about a year and playing 1/2 for about a year and a half (avg. a couple of weekend nights per month). I consider myself just above a break-even player. BR = $1,700. The last couple of months I've been playing more and have been running good/playing well (for the most part). I study by reading books (e.g., Harrington on Cash, etc.) and reading 2+2, and analyzing significant hands with the help of an equity calculator on my phone (usually at the table, while I'm not in a hand). I see many of the same players at the 1/2 tables have begun to understand which players to be careful with.

Generally, my playing style is as follows: 1) play tight, 2) bet aggressively with big made hands and draws, 3) never slowplay and 4) rarely bluff. Also, I have learned to adjust my style according to the table/player and vary style within a session.

I've been thinking about taking a shot a 2/5 and this thread confirmed that there wasn't a lot a risk by doing so. My life roll is intact and am in good shape professionlly.

So - last Friday I sit down at a 2/5 table and bought in for $470 (I had lost $30 at 1/2 while waiting for a 2/5 seat to open up).

A couple of observations: 1) the 2/5 players are much more aggressive than the 1/2 players in terms of betsizing, especially with reraises, 2) 2/5 players are not there to have fun/socialize like I see at the 1/2 tables. 1/2 players might talk about where they work, their kids, etc. The 2/5 players, with what little conversation occurred, was about tournaments going on in out-of-state casinos = who's playing, who isnt, etc. - much more in tune with the state of the poker world.

About 3 hours in I had AhKd in the SB. My stack was about 340. There were 4 limpers in front of me. I made it 25 from the SB. Got 4 callers. Flop was Kh 2d Jc. I lead out with 80, figuring I had a tight/weakish image, so I wanted to bet strong and send a message that I wasn't going away easily. V1 went all-in for 95 (had been playig tight with a small stack). V2 called (had been mixing it up in lots of pots, stack was up and down the whole time I was there). V3 and V4 also folded. I covered V2, but not my much. Pot is now ~$410. I had about 235 left. V3 has about 200 in front of him. Turn is an 8h. I'm first to act and am heads up with V3. What do i do at this point? I don't like to overplay TPTK, but I think I've just fallen into that trap.



This was definately a good experience in terms of understanding the differences between the two levels and taking away things that I could apply to my normal 1/2 game until my BR permits me to take another shot. Also, only having one bullet at 2/5 definately altered my play. There were several instances were I would have played in early position at 1/2, but folded at 2/5 because of the more agressive betting.

I totally agree with everything said in the original post. Gj, I plan on doing this.