Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros)

07-25-2015 , 07:01 PM
Hey guys,
So far I've been playing on 10NL as a way to learn and study poker.
But I keep reading on the forums that micros are a 'different' game than the next levels.

My question is: Wouldn't it make more sense then to start my poker studies at say 50NL? (considering I'd have the necessary bankroll)

Thanks
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 07:55 PM
If you feel like losing more money.

I would stay down until you are a consistent winner at 10NL.

Cheers!
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 08:15 PM
Boxing is different at pro levels than in schoolboy training. Should a 14-year old mix it up with Pacquiao in 2 minute full contact rounds to speed things up, or should he start with skipping and bag work first?

If you're crushing 10NL or you just don't care about throwing money away, go ahead.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 09:05 PM
You gotta walk before you can run young grasshoppa.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 09:25 PM
I started in 25 NL for this reason...players are so awful in 4 NL and 10 NL I just decided to skip those levels since they weren't fun for me. That being said, I still see awful play all the time, so you're going to see it regardless in micros but 25 NL may be a "happy medium" for you. As others have said though, you may lose more money learning at that stake.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 09:48 PM
Start at the bottom.

If you have a solid roll and lots of confidence then moving up very quickly could be beneficial.

Getting a coach would speed things up considerably as well.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 10:01 PM
Yes, it is different because the games outside of the micros are more difficult. The learning experience is additive from the micros to small stakes, not unique.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-25-2015 , 10:38 PM
Spend that roll on programs and training instead.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ad hoc
Spend that roll on programs and training instead.
This. Part of why I started on 25 NL is because I read and studied cash games quite a bit and 25 NL seemed more like "real poker" than 4 NL. Unless you have done programs / training / books first I wouldn't waste the extra money at a higher limit.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescubatim
I started in 25 NL for this reason...players are so awful in 4 NL and 10 NL I just decided to skip those levels since they weren't fun for me. That being said, I still see awful play all the time, so you're going to see it regardless in micros but 25 NL may be a "happy medium" for you. As others have said though, you may lose more money learning at that stake.
Yeah, it's so terrible to have to play against awful players. Much easier to win money against competent regs.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 02:03 AM
The games are getting progressively tougher every year at the lowest limits. Even at 20nl you are playing against people who are grinding for living, and have done that for years.
All your mistakes will cost less when you start lower. You need to learn skills such as: productivity, tilt control and strategy (pot odds, fold equity, implied oddS). It doesn't matter what limit it is.

If you can afford it, I think 10nl is a decent limit to start at. But there is nothing wrong at spending a month or two at the lowest limits. I personally spent too long time in the lowest limits, but I wasn't rich back then. The experience helped me to move up the limits quickly.

One simple answer to your question would be: try it out.
Try your luck at 50nl and if it's working keep doing so.
It might work out if you only play against fish. But even the fish get better the higher you go. You could get outplayed by a fish...

So my advice is to start at 10nl. If it's your first month of poker, then start at 5nl or 2nl.

Last edited by Fishtankz; 07-26-2015 at 02:08 AM.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 02:59 AM
I agree nl10 looks like the way to go,also idk why ppl think that every1 who just start he will be get crushed at first,some ppl seat and start winning or not?
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobis
I agree nl10 looks like the way to go,also idk why ppl think that every1 who just start he will be get crushed at first,some ppl seat and start winning or not?
Sadly, beating 10NL these days for a complete novice is virtually impossible. Stuff like opening 10x, limping, calling 3bets way too wide or tight, not exploiting the blinds in steal positions, not recognizing good board textures to herocall/bluff, not having an idea of ranges and equities, not understanding pot odds, not understanding implied odds and fold equity, automatically being targeted by the regs and a whole lot of other stuff will nearly guarantee you will not succeed.

The majority of the player pool will be able to capitalize on these mistakes and even then before you actually start to profit you need to beat the best player at the table (rake).
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues88
So far I've been playing on 10NL as a way to learn and study poker.
But I keep reading on the forums that micros are a 'different' game than the next levels.

My question is: Wouldn't it make more sense then to start my poker studies at say 50NL? (considering I'd have the necessary bankroll)
How much are you losing at 10NL? If you're not beating 10NL, you're just gonna get crushed at higher levels.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 12:38 PM
I'm not losing... Right now I'm at +13bb/100 at 10NL (but my hand sampling is ridiculously small - a bit under 1k).

I'm learning a LOT then I go practice on the tables. Just wanted to know if I should be using another level to learn...
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
Yeah, it's so terrible to have to play against awful players. Much easier to win money against competent regs.
It's not about the money...
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues88
I'm not losing... Right now I'm at +13bb/100 at 10NL (but my hand sampling is ridiculously small - a bit under 1k).

I'm learning a LOT then I go practice on the tables. Just wanted to know if I should be using another level to learn...
Lol definitely stick to 10nl. You haven't even played 1k hands yet and think you should play higher? Learn basic skills such as tilt control etc at 10nl for cheap and move up when you beat it over a sufficient sample size. If you do it this way moving up stake by stake there are literally only tiny differences and adjustments you need to make to beat the next limit also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thescubatim
I started in 25 NL for this reason...players are so awful in 4 NL and 10 NL I just decided to skip those levels since they weren't fun for me. That being said, I still see awful play all the time, so you're going to see it regardless in micros but 25 NL may be a "happy medium" for you. As others have said though, you may lose more money learning at that stake.
Results?
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues88
It's not about the money...
So you play poker purely for an ego boost or something? Interesting.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 03:23 PM
Gotta lose that money somehow, why waste it at the micros?
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
So you play poker purely for an ego boost or something? Interesting.
Ok, not sure if I should take your comment seriously, but...

Money is a byproduct and I don't think I should be worrying about it anytime soon (while I'm learning)
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 04:23 PM
Money's not a byproduct, it's how you keep score in poker. The entire goal of poker is to win money. It's easiest to win money from bad players so the post I was originally replying to made no sense, because the poster was complaining that the micros were "so awful" he didn't want to play them.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-26-2015 , 04:34 PM
If you can accept the fact that you're probably going to be a losing player at 50NL, and can afford to lose a thousand dollars or two, I say go for it. You will get better faster by playing against better competition.

In general, people stress too much about bankroll management and moving up too soon at micros. If you're a losing player, BRM is irrelevant. All that matters is can you afford your losses while you get better? If you can, you should.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-27-2015 , 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blues88
It's not about the money...
Exactly. You have to play what you actually enjoy playing, within reason, otherwise it's not even worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eu.Era
Lol definitely stick to 10nl. You haven't even played 1k hands yet and think you should play higher? Learn basic skills such as tilt control etc at 10nl for cheap and move up when you beat it over a sufficient sample size. If you do it this way moving up stake by stake there are literally only tiny differences and adjustments you need to make to beat the next limit also.



Results?
This month, which is about half the sample size (which yes I know is small, I mostly have done MTTs) is about 15 BB/100. Starting at 25 NL wasn't a money sink for me. If I started at 50 NL that may have been a different story.



Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
Yeah, it's so terrible to have to play against awful players. Much easier to win money against competent regs.
There's plenty of terrible players at 25 NL, at least on Carbon. Sure, you may get a table that's just full of competent regs and no fish, but at that point just start table selecting or go watch Family Guy instead.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-27-2015 , 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thescubatim
Exactly. You have to play what you actually enjoy playing, within reason, otherwise it's not even worth it.
I've never understood how it's more enjoyable to lose $200 than it is to win $2.
Quote:
There's plenty of terrible players at 25 NL, at least on Carbon.
Of course there are, but even terrible 25NL players are better than most people just starting out, which is why the advice is always to learn to beat the worst players first then move up from there.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote
07-27-2015 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop
I've never understood how it's more enjoyable to lose $200 than it is to win $2.

Of course there are, but even terrible 25NL players are better than most people just starting out, which is why the advice is always to learn to beat the worst players first then move up from there.
Well, I'm not saying go up to 200 NL, that's just crazy. Also why I started learning with 10 NL and 25 NL online vs. 200 NL live....yeah 200 NL live is equivalent to 10 NL online but why lose $200 when you can lose $2?

I'm not saying someone who has no clue about the game should start at 25. I'm just saying if they've studied strategy, read Harrington's on cash games, whatever and they have a reasonably solid grasp on the game then I don't feel they should have to grind up a bankroll from 10 NL to play 25 NL.

For what it's worth, I just finished a short session at 25 and there were 2-3 fish on each table. Yeah, there were competent regs, but I just avoided them unless I had a good hand that I wanted to play with. Easy enough to do. Even at 10 NL you'll have a few regs at each table so I don't think it'll make much difference at either stake. This is obviously site dependent I'm sure...Carbon will play tougher than Bovada and both of those are softer than Stars from what I've heard.
Should I start on small stakes? (skipping the micros) Quote

      
m