My apologies if this is not the correct place to start this thread/post.

I play poker as a hobby. Currently I am playing well at 1-2-3NL at Bay 101. Unfortunately, this is over a small sample size. I have the bankroll to play 2-3-5NL. I have read some of the Bay Area threads and many state that the skill level is similar between 1-2-3NL and 2-3-5NL. So my question: should I move up to 2-3-5NL since I have the bankroll and the skill level is the same?

PS - I am currently happy playing 1-2-3NL and amassing hands played until I can say for certain that I am a winning player over the long term. But if the skill level is the same, should I not move up?

I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks in advance.

Do as you wish. If you want to play for higher stakes go for it.

There're probably a few better, more aggressive players who will put you in tough spots in the bigger game.

Just test it out. Play a few times and if you like it, stick with it. If you don't the other game will always be there.

Good luck.

Thank you for your response. And thanks to the admin for moving the thread/post to the proper category.

The mod who moved it didn't put it in the right place either. We'll leave it where it is at this point, though.

Before anyone can give you any decent advice other than, "try it and see what happens," you'll need to define your terms more specifically.

1. What does "playing well" mean? What is your winrate per hour?
2. What is a "small sample size?" How many hours have you played?
3. What is the size of your bankroll?

As for the rest, the difference in skill level between 1/2/3 and 2/3/5 isn't defined by the best player in the room playing at thoses levels. There won't be much difference. The difference is how bad the worst couple of players are at your table. The worst players at 2/3/5 are going to be much better then that worst players at 1/2/3. The players are 2/3/5 aren't going to hand you their money as easily as those at 1/2/3.

Finally, you'll never be statistically certain you're a winning player in a live game. You can't play enough hands over time. So I wouldn't worry about waiting until you have proof.

For me, winning poker is about making sure you are the best or second best player at a table. It isn't a matter of winning, but rather is the player maximizing their wins and minimizing their losses. Are they playing too many or too few hands? Are they calling down to the river, then folding? By the river, can you figure out what they have down to a small range? These are questions you want to ask yourself before you move up.

Wow, great response. Thank you Venice. Much to think about.

My biggest poker regret is taking too long to move up from 1/2. 2/5 is incredibly soft. People really suck at this game.

At Bay/M8trix, more than a few. I would suggest the normal stack game for sure to start out. The deep stack games have some crazy guys. I would also suggest buying in kind of short to start, like 400-500 bucks, until you get a feel for the guys at your table.

I haven't really played the 2/3/5 but I used to play the 5-200 spread limit and I remember the craziest guys in those games, now playing in the 2/3/5 deep stacks.

Thanks to everyone for the responses; great advice and information. I think since I am comfortable with 1-2-3NL, I shall stick to it for the immediate future. I shall put in some more hours and then decide. Once again, much appreciation for the responses.

Stop relying on external advice on whether other people suck. As someone pointed out, you can just take a small shot and see for yourself. Whether a game is soft or not really depends on who is doing the evaluation - an expert player may tell you all the games are soft because they are from her perspective, and a mediocre player may tell you the upper limits are tough because they are to him. If you suck (and we've all been there so no judgements), they're all tough.

Every step up the ladder makes the game tougher, people play tighter and more aggreasively as you move up. I'd argue the toughness of the game is measured by "the field" - everybody BUT the best and the worst. When you look around your 1/2/3 table, how many peoples' mistakes can you identify and exploit? How many ranges can you predict at showdown? If the percentage is high, you're doing well (regardless of what your monetary standing is).

2/3/5 at Bay (and M8trix) is nice because there are levels "above" (the Deep Stack, plus M8trix runs 5/10 and 10/25 sometimes). Next time you win $300 at 1/2/3, pocket your 1/2/3 buyin and take the $300 to the 2/3/5 table and see for yourself what it's like. Identify tough players and study what makes them tough. Post tough hands in LLSNL.

Fair enough. And thank you for the frank, honest, and informative post.

Not sure if this is good practice, but for fun I like to observe real money cash games on Pokerstars. I do well at predicting ranges at showdown and player tendencies (w/o HUD) at 1/2NL 9 player ring games. However, at 2/4NL it tends to be a decent level harder. I understand that online games are different from live games, but certain aspects are similar (if not the same).

Once again, thanks to everyone for the responses. I hope to put the advice and information to good use.