|
|
| Small Stakes PL/NL Discussions regarding small stakes pot and no-limit hold'em (50c-1 to 1-2)
Forum is closed; read only. |
08-13-2009, 08:38 PM
|
#1
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
200NL vs. 25/50NL
I have tried and tried to play 25nl and 50nl and constantly bust my online account. I never get up any. Usually start down and lose lose lose. I recently started playing 200NL and have had some moderate success. I seem to have more feel for the bigger bets and can take control of more pots. I don't have a big enough online BR yet but I don't understand the grinding mentality of the micro limits. It seems the micro limit is just a waste of time. The larger limit plays more like real poker. It seems saving up a bigger BR and starting at 200NL makes more sense. Do people really think the skill level is that different from micro to small? I have continued to buy short and win an entire BI. Usually buyin for $50 and cash out around $200+. I never could buy in at 25NL full and win even 3 times my buy in. I also don't seem to go on tilt as much at 200NL and play more TAG than at 25 or 50NL. I think I am playing more ABC poker. Does any of this make sense? I just started reading the forum and getting more serious about poker. Any help or suggestions are great.
Also:
I have played in my local 1/2 NL game for a couple of years and have always been a break even to small loser in the game. Since March of this year I have become a winning player. I think I am playing much tighter and more ABC. My goal is 5/10. is the skill level that much higher? I'm not going to jump right in but I will consider playing up to 400NL and taking some shots at 1000NL until I feel comfortable. Again am I blind?
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 08:42 PM
|
#2
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,694
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
you could be missing out on a large portion of value, but can pick off bluffs and win more often without showdown. that would explain why you find 200nl easier since unl is all bout value and folding correctly, where making people fold is a larger part of the game wt 200nl
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 08:58 PM
|
#3
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps
you could be missing out on a large portion of value, but can pick off bluffs and win more often without showdown. that would explain why you find 200nl easier since unl is all bout value and folding correctly, where making people fold is a larger part of the game wt 200nl
|
what do you think about the skill level at 1000NL? Much different?
I'm happy playing 200NL right now b/c I consider a couple hundred a nice day.
It drove my crazy that I could play excellent at 25Nl and win only $50 in 3 or 4 or more hours. But if I continue to win I know I'll want more action.
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:12 PM
|
#4
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Partying
Posts: 212
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
I mean sample size man. If you've logged 60k hands at NL200 and are a decent winner while losing over 60k hands at 25nl/50nl then we could talk. You're probably just running good at those higher stakes with your short stints. If you couldn't beat your local 1-2 game you're fresh meat for a 200nl reg and probably a 100nl reg.
This isn't trying to be negative, coming to this forum, thinking about your game is the first step. It sounds from your posts that you don't care about the money involved in the uNL games so you just spew, while you're playing very nitty in games where the money is meaningful.
To play 200NL, your minimum bankroll should be 5k (25 BI's), and the ultimate goal should be 20k, (100BI's). My opinions, but i think they've been echoed before. Is that what your bankroll looks like? I guess if you short-stack that changes things, (4k would be 100 'short-buys').
If you can't see the skill difference between the low stakes and 200NL, (which a lot of MSNL players will hit up when games are bad), you're either the best game-selecter of all time or blind.
Just focus on playing within a bankroll and playing well and see how long you can go without clicking the cashier button. gl
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:13 PM
|
#5
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 24,622
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
yeah sample size dude. the above post contains much wisdom.
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:40 PM
|
#6
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time 4 Party
I mean sample size man. If you've logged 60k hands at NL200 and are a decent winner while losing over 60k hands at 25nl/50nl then we could talk. You're probably just running good at those higher stakes with your short stints. If you couldn't beat your local 1-2 game you're fresh meat for a 200nl reg and probably a 100nl reg.
This isn't trying to be negative, coming to this forum, thinking about your game is the first step. It sounds from your posts that you don't care about the money involved in the uNL games so you just spew, while you're playing very nitty in games where the money is meaningful.
To play 200NL, your minimum bankroll should be 5k (25 BI's), and the ultimate goal should be 20k, (100BI's). My opinions, but i think they've been echoed before. Is that what your bankroll looks like? I guess if you short-stack that changes things, (4k would be 100 'short-buys').
If you can't see the skill difference between the low stakes and 200NL, (which a lot of MSNL players will hit up when games are bad), you're either the best game-selecter of all time or blind.
Just focus on playing within a bankroll and playing well and see how long you can go without clicking the cashier button. gl
|
Thank you Thank you. I'm just starting to take this serious b/c I think about playing 24/7. I've never kept a seperat bankroll b/c I have enough extra cash to sort of play when I want. I've never really kept any records b/c I was happy with extra cash in my pocket. I know this is very stupid, but it's all changing (I hope for the better). I can probably put together a 5K BR fairly easy and not freak out tomuch if I go busto.
I am not blind that 200NL has better players than micro I think I seem to understand the play better. I'm not sure if my short stack play is smart but I don't like changing something that is working. Any thought about that?
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:40 PM
|
#7
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by BitchiBee
yeah sample size dude. the above post contains much wisdom.
|
I agree
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:45 PM
|
#8
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,004
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Also, how many tables are you playing at 25/50NL vs 200NL?
I always thought, the money at small stakes was a very large factor in how I first started playing at smaller stake games vs micro stake games. You are probably playing very tight at 200NL and much looser at 25/50NL that's why you are seeing these two different results. Combined with the chance that you've been running well at 200NL over the small sample size and you have your discrepancy.
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 09:54 PM
|
#9
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,362
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Maybe you are just terrible at 100bb play and decent (or lose less) playing short.
If you can beat 200nl but not the micros it isn't becuase your 'style' is more 'suited' to the higher stakes but probably because a) you play differently at 200nl anyway (by the nature of buying in short this is already the case) and b) what everyone else said about sample size
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 10:00 PM
|
#10
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,838
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
maybe they respect your raises more?
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 10:01 PM
|
#11
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsek
Also, how many tables are you playing at 25/50NL vs 200NL?
I always thought, the money at small stakes was a very large factor in how I first started playing at smaller stake games vs micro stake games. You are probably playing very tight at 200NL and much looser at 25/50NL that's why you are seeing these two different results. Combined with the chance that you've been running well at 200NL over the small sample size and you have your discrepancy.
|
I'm only playing about 500 hands a day. I'm going to step that up shortly. 4 months to reach 60K isn't bad
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 10:04 PM
|
#12
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfdish
maybe they respect your raises more?
|
I think so. I also respect the raise.
|
|
|
08-13-2009, 10:55 PM
|
#13
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Burninating SSNL
Posts: 4,068
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
if you have 5k to put into poker get a training site subscription or 2. watch 20-30 videos and practice at the micro limits.
then get a coach and move up to nl100.
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 02:11 AM
|
#14
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: .........
Posts: 1,664
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
OP is a genius. The games get easier the higher you move up. Railheaven watch out
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 02:13 AM
|
#15
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 220
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
LUCK
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 02:31 AM
|
#16
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grinding
Posts: 6,149
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
I guess I'd love for you to play 2/4+, but truth be told you probably aren't near a winning player @ 1/2. It really prob is sample size. @ .25/.5 its not just like you aren't winning because others are so bad. If you can't beat them you can't beat 1/2, simple as that. I agree w/ whoever suggested to invest in training sites, read more of this forum
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 03:15 AM
|
#17
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,783
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Wow, I thought the whole "move up where they respect your raises" thing was just a joke
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:23 AM
|
#18
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,409
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
I don't think someone who can't beat 50NL can beat 200NL.
If I were you, I'd stick with 25NL or 50NL until you can consistently beat it over like 50k hands.
If you don't want to or really feel that you are more profitable at 200NL, keep playing it. If you can't take the heat, move back down.
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:27 AM
|
#19
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,783
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
btw op,
live 1/2nl is about the same as .05/.10 online, and I'm not exaggerating.
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:39 AM
|
#20
|
|
Carnal \ 'Knowledge
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: @terppoker
Posts: 14,781
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
it's completely logical that skill levels increase along with stakes, even if not in a linear fashion. 1/2 will be SOME amount harder than .5/1, and 2/4 will be SOME amount harder still.
if you somehow found that you actually have a higher winrate at a higher limit than a lower one (and all else is held constant) i'd imagine you're not beating either for much (or are losing outright) and are succeeding in spite of yourself and essentially by accident.
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:42 AM
|
#21
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spewtarded
Posts: 1,828
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlimit
Thank you Thank you. I'm just starting to take this serious b/c I think about playing 24/7. I've never kept a seperat bankroll b/c I have enough extra cash to sort of play when I want. I've never really kept any records b/c I was happy with extra cash in my pocket. I know this is very stupid, but it's all changing (I hope for the better). I can probably put together a 5K BR fairly easy and not freak out tomuch if I go busto.
I am not blind that 200NL has better players than micro I think I seem to understand the play better. I'm not sure if my short stack play is smart but I don't like changing something that is working. Any thought about that?
|
This is your problem with 25NL and 50NL. On top of relatively bigger rake, you are playing with people who bet lightly less or people who dont fold so you will get higher swings. Just play 100bb (or 200bb if you can) deep and use your skill advantage against them.
i can guarantee you that if you are playing a huge sample size of 25nl and not beating it, then you will not beat 200nl unless you are running well.
do what i did, start out small so you can prove to yourself you can win any stake and go from there. if money is no issue, play for ego. in Jan, I was thinking i could play 25nl no problem. i started out with $0 though and turned $0-->$10. From 2NL, i went to 5nl-->10nl-->25nl. This was a month or two in and from that time on learning from lower stakes, i had realized A LOT about my game and was able to crush 25nl pretty well. I am now 1/4 of the way through 100NL and still chugging away (let me remind you i started playing cash in january and have learned a lot).
i know this is a subtle brag post but i hope it proves a point. put ego aside and put money aside. if you want to better the both of those, you have to trust me when i say play below your limits and progress as a player
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:43 AM
|
#22
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2007
Location: standard, not standart
Posts: 273
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
what everyone said
also: dont underestimate the experience you gain by grinding up through the micros. you really learn to valuebet and understand several sorts of fish and their ranges.
and dont think about playing 24/7 if you cant even beat a limit where thats not even close to worthwhile.
my advice:
- start at NL10 w 300$ BR, or NL25 (750$) if you dont care about the money. beat this for at least 50K hands with a decent WR before you move up
- learn, learn, learn from books, forums (discussions are extremely valuable in getting better), training vids
- grind. if you learn the game it shouldnt take you long to get up to NL50
- never play underrolled. if you havent experienced 15+ BI downswings, you havent really played online poker
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 08:09 AM
|
#23
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Thanks for all the advice. I'm kinda surprised everybody suggests starting with micro. I really do understand the higher the limit the better the players. I just think I play better when the $$$ means a little more( but not scared $$$). I have a hard time remembering that a $3 raise is big. I also understand my sample size is a joke, ~5k. I do know for a fact that there are very very bad players at all limits.
I am very interested in the training sites and coaching. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 08:14 AM
|
#24
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 361
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by neaera
what everyone said
also: dont underestimate the experience you gain by grinding up through the micros. you really learn to valuebet and understand several sorts of fish and their ranges.
and dont think about playing 24/7 if you cant even beat a limit where thats not even close to worthwhile.
my advice:
- start at NL10 w 300$ BR, or NL25 (750$) if you dont care about the money. beat this for at least 50K hands with a decent WR before you move up
- learn, learn, learn from books, forums (discussions are extremely valuable in getting better), training vids
- grind. if you learn the game it shouldnt take you long to get up to NL50
- never play underrolled. if you havent experienced 15+ BI downswings, you havent really played online poker
|
don't get me wrong I care about the money. I just have a decent income so I'm not gambling with the mortgage or food money. yeah, 24/7 is not good. I do love the game. I am trying to read all the forums and have read and am rereading a lot of books. your advice sounds like the smart thing to do, I would just rather start with 5k at NL200 (I know bad move).
|
|
|
08-14-2009, 08:27 AM
|
#25
|
|
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,783
|
Re: 200NL vs. 25/50NL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlimit
Thanks for all the advice. I'm kinda surprised everybody suggests starting with micro. I really do understand the higher the limit the better the players. I just think I play better when the $$$ means a little more( but not scared $$$). I have a hard time remembering that a $3 raise is big. I also understand my sample size is a joke, ~5k. I do know for a fact that there are very very bad players at all limits.
|
This is a terrible mindset to have as a poker player. It's also a mindset live players tend to have.
You shouldn't be thinking about the money at all, 75 cents or 75 dollars should theoretically mean the same to you, depending on the situation.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.
|