Not totally a beginner question but not sure where else to put it.

When would you consider moving up in stakes? At what point are you considered a long term winner at a level (1-2/1-3) and should think about a bump up in levels? As a lump sum amount, I'm a winner at 1-2 for the past couple of years (10k+) but am starting to consider 2-5 or even 5-5 on a more consistent basis.

Thanks.

Type in your statistics in pokerdope's variance calculator to see the chances you are a long term winner. If it's like 98% sure go ahead and move up

A lot of factors enter into this decision – objectives, bankroll, risk tolerance, spouse, etc. Here I look at only the statistics. To move up you should be confident you are a winning player so the following explains how to determine if you have played enough hands in a cash game to meet that goal.


Assume you have sample data that indicates you have a positive win rate of W/100 with a standard deviation of S/100. To determine the sample size you need to assure with a specified confidence that you are a winning player, you can use the following formula:

N =100*( Zc*S / W)^2

where Zc is the normal distribution factor corresponding to a one-sided C% confidence interval: Z80 = 0.84, Z90 = 1.28, Z95 = 1.645. Note that N increases with C and S, and decreases with W. On line tracking programs typically provide a standard deviation estimate or you can use a value between 70 and 100 if you don't want to calculate it yourself.

Example: You have an estimated win rate of 5 per 100 hands with a corresponding standard deviation of 75 per 100. To be 80% confident you are a winning player,


N = 100*(0.84*75 / 5)^2 = 16,000 (approx..).

For C=90%, N = 37,000 (approx.) and N = 61,000 for 95% confidence.

The above assumes your win rate is distributed normally (valid by the Central Limit Theorem) and that your win rate and standard deviation are relatively constant over the sample period. If your win rate is not constant but is increasing, then the sample size result can be considered to be conservative.- i.e., it is more than you need.

The following thread discusses sample size requirements for a single table sit’n’go:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...t-rate-1741082

Move up when you're not just a winner, but destroy the game. You can't afford to grind out a 5bb/100 winrate when moving up because you'll never get enough hands in to withstand variance without going insane.

for me poker is entertainment. I move up when I have enough cash. or when I have availability to the games in my case.

This doesn't make sense. Why would you move up if you only play for entertainment (which is another way of saying you lose money at the game)? If it's for entertainment, you should play at the smallest available real money stakes or play money. Unless you get more entertainment losing more money at higher stakes?


To OP: move up when you have a decent bankroll. Test the games at the higher limits, if you feel out of your depth move down. There isn't a linear progression in difficulty between the limits like most people would have you believe. Some games at 25/50 are softer than some 2/5 games, so it depends.

I don't care if i win or lose money. I do play play money games online. I do play $1050 online mtts. I play live mtts. where i am there's no no limit holdem cash games legal ones anyways so im going to move to where they are and more nlh mtts are.

I play for the experience and i enjoy making what i think is the best play that i know of at that point in time.

Where might I find this?

There's a good chance if you google "pokerdope's variance calculator", then you will find pokerdope's variance calculator.

$10K in it's self is not enough information. Hours played and 'VPIP' type of information is also very prevalent. If that's a two year total then that's not very impressive .. unless you only play one session a month.

That being said, moving up is not a 'no looking back' moment in poker. I'm a 'feel' guy so if you feel ready then take a shot for a session or two and see how you feel at that table. I find the biggest hurdle in moving up is not the poker side, it's the mental money side. Are you ready to draw for $80 rather than $18 even though it's the same poker spot? If you aren't ready to view your chips as BB instead of $$ then you should stay where you are.

There is also the obvious consideration that 'how' you are winning at lower stakes will be less available at higher stakes. This is very Player pool dependent. Soft spots at the table are typically harder to find, but more importantly you 'shouldn't' get paid off as much in certainly situations either.

There are a lot of 'stats' guys on this site, I tend to lean towards the emotional side of things which, IMO, is more important for your query than your 'true' stats. You will never find me discouraging a 'good' 1/2 Player from at least sitting down at the next level. The worst case scenario is that you will lose some BI but when you return to your current level you will feel that much better about your place at the table. GL

Playing for entertainment is another way most rational people would say 'I don't depend on poker to pay my bills.'

Why would someone just looking for basic entertainment limit themselves to the lowest stakes possible? THAT makes zero sense. There is different play at different stakes. Some of us (to include, apparently, jkak) have the means to buy in for mid-stakes games...if we win, that is the added bonus. However, if we lose the buy-in, we won't be looking for a bridge to jump off of. Let's face it...a $5/10 buy-in is basically somewhere between $1-2K. That isn't a huge deal for some of us.

Bankroll is less relevant when someone is not depending on poker as a sole source of income. But ironically enough, your answer to this part of the OP's fundamental question is precisely why someone like jkak or others playing for entertainment might look at higher stakes...the challenge (or lack there of) might very well be part of the entertainment factor.

Move up when there's a soft table as well

right, you move up when you see a table that is soft enough for you to be a bigger favorite to win per hour than where you are currently playing. same thing if moving down.

otherwise your life is stuck in a rut. and might as well be a bus driver.

It is always amazing to me how little understanding online players have of live poker. 16K hands to prove some confidence interval? That's years of live play for a recreational player. If your assumptions require someone to play many years before "correctly" doing something, there's probably something wrong in all that careful math. As someone who once played 2000 hands/hour, totally get the attraction of those kinds of maths. They just don't apply to a small stakes live player.
Sounds totally reasonable.

So much this.


In small stakes live games, you don't need 200-1000 hours to know if you're likely a winner. As a recreational player who isn't playing for income and who has won enough to afford losses, you care less about certainty of winning. If you see a good looking game, give it a shot. Don't over-complicate this stuff. Agree with this

bankroll is only important if it is finite for you and cant replenish it. otherwise you in effect have an unlimited bankroll and can play accordingly as long as you are sure you are a winning player at that level.

once you have played for a bit and grasp the game you should be able to look at a table in 5 minutes or less and determine if you can beat it.