Exactly so.

Anyone who can beat 100nl is certainly capable of beating 25nl.

But anyone used to playing 100nl will get destroyed at 25nl if they don't adjust their playing style properly.

IMHO it's worth learning how to beat the lower levels first and work up - even if you can afford to start at higher stakes. Because then you don't get trapped into robotically playing in a certain style that works only against a particular level of competition. Playing through the levels gives you a more rounded ability and makes you aware of levels.

I learned this the hard way - starting at 100nl and having some success I learned that bluffing worked without learning why and when, and ended up being quite exploitable without any tighter strategy to fall back on. Then I started moving down to learn the building blocks properly (and to save money).

Now I play mainly 100nl, but also play sessions of 10nl, 25nl and 50nl occasionally (and sometimes mulitable across different stakes simultaneously) - not because of bankroll requirements, but just to train myself to be better at adjusting, which I think is very important for my development as a player.

The key thing is to play at exactly one level above your opponent - anything more sophisticated is losing, because your opponents won't recognise your traps or be drawn in to them. To do that, you need to be able to read your opponent's level accurately and know how to exploit it by staying one step ahead. And the best way to do that is to get experience across a range of levels, including analysing and trying to understand the play of those who are outleveling you!

Meh.

5NL is not my stakes, I play 2NL.
I just tried out 5NL when I saw this thread. I had a spare hour at the time n 4 tabled it till I had to go out again.
I don't know why I posted those stats TBH.

Haha - you're an experienced poster - you know what happens whenever anyone posts stats.

even at NL2 you will meet some opponents who know what they're doing. not many, but some. if you learn how to identify these players and treat them with respect, you shouldn't have much trouble turning a profit in the micros

adjusting to your opponents properly is important in any level of poker. a play that might work well against a tight-passive won't do you much good against a station. treat the micro-stakes as a practice ground for identifying different types of opponents

and be prepared for a few coolers. ugh

Can we get a screename ?

Yes I should have anticipated this kinda response. My bad I will stop posting insignificant samples in future can we stop hijacking the thread now n get back on topic.

uNL is very tough. I know some concepts and I have pretty decent solid preflop stats, but I get destroyed usually at 50nl.
Either folding too much and getting ran over by the lags or being a station and leaking 1/2 stack everytime i'm involved in a big pot.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

ok i'm back with a slightly bigger sample. i don't know, 5nl seems easier than 2nl for me. Meh still a small sample i know.

Play 6max.

I am playing 6max.

600 hands isn't even a sample of a sample.

666 it's the sign of the beast

I think this is another trap at the micros that beginners fall into - not only is understanding the amount of volume necessary for informed conclusions about the state of your game lacking, but often, after some run good - people will feel that they have poker solved. The reverse can also be true.

Its the poker mind f***, and can make playing the game difficult.

Fine can a mod please delete my posts ITT?

Dude - I wasn't trying to flame you or anything - in fact, I have been where you are, and frankly, I am probably still there with you.

I think its a huge to even begin to visualize the amount of volume necessary. People think 100k hands wow - but really, that may not even be enough. I wouldn't be disappointed about anything you have posted.

Really - its just one of those things, volume and variance, probably cause a lot more problems in understanding poker than people think, espcially skewing things at the micros.

you'd go nuts if you played nl2 for 100k hands
if you ask me, I'd move up as soon as your bank allows you to

as for a sample, I just moved to nl5 in over 20k hands

Also, you've got to be playing the same way. If anyone doesn't improve their game over 100k hands, they're not doing it right.

I think it's more important to be honest about your own play, continue to learn and improve, and to play within your bankroll.

I hate playing within my bankroll

My bankroll (due to voluntary demotion) says to play 5 or 10NL, but I did so much better at 100 or 200NL.

I think its the poker mind f*** that occurs when you're like....its only a buck to call and if I hit I'm golden!!! LOL

I think I'm just gonna save a few BI's and just deposit at once so I can go back to 100NL where I played (and won) better.

I don't know about a lot of you, but more $ on the table means I think/level/play better.

Fixed your post.

Must be nice.

Variance can do some interesting things. A player could be improving over 100k hands, but that may not show in the results. In a game where success is measured by a single big blind per 100 hands - it doesn't take that many bad beats to skew things. This can be magnified at the micros where the rake is killer. I may be incorrect, I think if you are break even at the micros - you are actually winning about 10bb/100 yet you are not overcoming the rake.

Jombo,

I don't mean "run better"; it just seems my decision making is better. I know my biggest leak at uNL is that I play too many hands and play them poorly postflop (which if you're LAG postflop play is uber-important).

When I play 100NL or 200NL; I don't make many of those same mistakes and play much more TAGish and play better post flop.

The sad thing is...I know my biggest leak at uNL and can't seem to plug it for long. Ill start out playing well; then boredom usually sets in. I've tried MT (like 5 or 6 games) but still get bored with the slim amount of money on the table....

Ugh! Poker (I love her but hate her just the same)

What's your sample size at 100nl and 200nl, and what's your sample size below 50nl?

TBH, I wouldn't be able to accurately tell you that. I haven't played 100 or 200NL in about a year, and have barely been able to crack 2000 hands at 5 or 10NL since I started playing again.

I really prefer playing live poker (and that's why I gave up 100-200 a year go) but have since moved to a state with no casinos. When I played online 100-200NL I had a net profit of $3,000 (with about $600 coming from some $10-20 STT)in the course of 6 months playing 1 or 2 days a week for like 4-5 hrs ($12/hr if you break it down). I never owned HEM or PT3, but kept track of stats on an Excel sheet.

Of course, I'm no poker genius...but a decent winrate (especially after RB) nevertheless. Also my live winnings were very comparable to this as well (played 1/3NL; avg $14/hr).

This is why I get so frustrated with uNL. I can play well, lose some of the obv 80/20's and get tilted by only making $3/hr.

Ugh!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

here you go, slightly bigger sample, my last 4000 hands, i'll post again after 10k
i only 4 table, an hour a few days a week so i'm struggling to play more hands

Did it take you long to start achieving results like that?