Party NL Tables [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

grouchie

11-08-2004, 02:30 PM

I've been playing the $25NL tables at party for a month or two and have been doing good, but of course there is a constant frustration in see'ing what kinds of hands others are playing and winning with on occasion.
People calling $3+ raises with things like A4 just because it's suited and winning with two pair.
Being that it's a low buy-in you are going to have these things though so if i lose my stack to things like that I just shrug it off and eithor reload if the table is good, or find a new table.

MY question is, are the bigger buy-in NL games different? DO you find less bad calls and bad plays as you move up to the $50NL and $100NL games?

what kind of differences are there as you move up.
any othere differences I should be aware of as I take a stab at moving up?

thank you for your time

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 04:02 PM

At the lower limits, your opponents tend to play more passively with a wider range of hands.

At the higher limits, your opponents tend to play more aggressively with a smaller range of hands. But at the same time, their hand reading abilities are also a bit better.

If you decide to play NL50/NL100, you should have AT LEAST 10 buy-ins to work with. 20 would be even better. Even though the suck-outs and bad beats don't happen quite as often when you move up to the higher limits, they still happen.

schwza

11-08-2004, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing the $25NL tables at party for a month or two and have been doing good, but of course there is a constant frustration in see'ing what kinds of hands others are playing and winning with on occasion.
People calling $3+ raises with things like A4 just because it's suited and winning with two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

as you play more, you'll find that this kind of play makes you happy, not frustrated - every time you see it you can think that you're more confident you can beat the game, and there's an idiot with a lot of money to take. or at least, that's been my experience.

i feel better when i get money in ahead and lose than vice versa.

spentrent

11-08-2004, 05:37 PM

Richie -- you advocate 10 to 20 buy-ins. Is it better to think in terms of buy-ins rather than big blinds? I made my rule 300 big blinds for NL but that doesn't even come close to 10 to 20 buy-ins.

Should I rethink this? I always play the max buy-in at PokerStars, which is double that at Party Poker. Reading your post, I'm now questioning my confidence in my 300 big blind rule...

LokiV

11-08-2004, 05:51 PM

300bb is 6 buyins on pokerstars. I started that way and still do it, but be aware you may swing down past 6 buyins if your style leads to high variance.

It is important to know if you can reload your bankroll or if once that's gone you're effectively done. From that you can determine if you're fine with someday losing that bankroll. Ironically (to non-poker minds) the less you want to lose that bankroll, the bigger it should be.

Sephus

11-08-2004, 05:52 PM

you really should have at least ten, if it will be a problem restoring your bankroll should you lose it all, that is. you should expect to have a ten buyin downswing eventually.

spentrent

11-08-2004, 06:00 PM

BAD MOJO BAD MOJO!

cornell2005

11-08-2004, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
300bb is 6 buyins on pokerstars.

[/ QUOTE ]

300 big blinds is 3 buyins at pokerstars, and 6 at party.

yea richie is right, you need 10-20 buyins.

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 07:29 PM

spentrent- Sounds like you're confusing limit with NL. In limit, the general rule of thumb is that you play with at least 300BB at any given level. In NL, however, we're always speaking in terms of buy-ins.

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
spentrent- Sounds like you're confusing limit with NL. In limit, the general rule of thumb is that you play with at least 300BB at any given level. In NL, however, we're always speaking in terms of buy-ins.

[/ QUOTE ]

with respect to buyins or blinds, they both are relevant variables to consider:

if we're playing $100 NL with 10 and 20 dollar blinds, i'd like a much bigger BR than 10 buyins. conversely, if the blinds are 5c/10c, i'm quite fine playing on just one.

All this discussion of bankroll requirements is much less absolute in NL than in limit; in general the best play in limit poker is known- in NL it's not. If you style is like mine, you will be trading a lot of small pots and winning the occasional big one, so you won't need as big a bankroll (in fact, when i got back into NL after apps, i played with one buyin at interpoker). conversely, if you're playing full ring and nut-peddling, the swings can be much worse (as you play fewer hands for larger pots) so you'd certainly like to have 10+ buyins behind.

The real fact of the matter is this: in general a bigger bankroll will allow you to not play scared thereby taking advantage of slightly +EV situations which carry huge variance that you wouldnt want to get involved with on a short bankroll. if you're ok playing conservative poker, then 5 buyins in a party-like structure is fine, but if you want to push every edge, you'll need many more.

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if we're playing $100 NL with 10 and 20 dollar blinds, i'd like a much bigger BR than 10 buyins. conversely, if the blinds are 5c/10c, i'm quite fine playing on just one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how either extreme is relevant to our discussion...

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if we're playing $100 NL with 10 and 20 dollar blinds, i'd like a much bigger BR than 10 buyins. conversely, if the blinds are 5c/10c, i'm quite fine playing on just one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how either extreme is relevant to our discussion...

[/ QUOTE ]

different sites offer different blind structures and different play styles.

interpoker has loose-passives in their 100NL games with $.50/1 blinds. very small BR needed for that one.

party has tables full of over-aggro loosies with 50BB stacks. much larger bankroll needed.

get it?

fim

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 08:33 PM

No, I don't get it. Comparing NL100 with $10/$20 blinds, .05/.10 blinds, and .5/1 or 1/2 blinds is completely ridiculous -- the first one doesn't exist, the second one sounds like a kooky home game, and the third one is what I was referring to.

If you play smart poker, and push/bet hard in +EV situations, then you need to have 10-20 buy-ins for swing & psychological reasons. No way around that. Any experienced NL player around here has lost AT LEAST 5-6 buy-ins before...and many more have lost 10+. If you nut-peddle in 100BB games, then you may be able to build your BR with only 6 buy-ins to start.

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't get it. Your talk about NL100 with $10/$20 blinds, .05/.10 blinds, and .5/1 blinds is completely ridiculous -- the first one doesn't exist, the second one sounds like a kooky home game, and the third one is what I was referring to.

If you play smart poker, and push/bet hard in +EV situations, then you need to have 10-20 buy-ins for swing & psychological reasons. No way around that. Any experienced NL player around here has lost AT LEAST 5-6 buy-ins before...and many more have lost 10+. If you nut-peddle in 100BB games, then you may be able to build your BR with only 6 buy-ins to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

step 1. reread my posts and realize i just stated what you said above.

step 2. follow link, learn a new word http://www.onelook.com/?w=hyperbole&ls=a

step 3. re-read my post again; nut peddling carries more variance, not less. your failure to understand why may be a good reason that you're not fully comprehending this thread.

you don't "need" any level of bankroll. your assertation of 10 as a minimum carries a bunch of assumptions about a person's mental state, skill level and style of play that are completely arbitrary. in order for a good player to have 0% ROR, he must have infinity buyins, that is the only absolute here, all else is your personal opinion.

fim

EDIT: Does the fact that i've never lost 5-6 buyins successively mean i am an inexperienced NL player?

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that i've never lost 5-6 buyins successively mean i am an inexperienced NL player?

[/ QUOTE ]
In part. Combined with the fact that you think 10k hands is a large enough sample to determine a person's win rate.

Try using the "Search" feature on this forum. You'll notice that there are plenty of good players who have dropped more than 6 successive buy-ins, and others who have only broken even over 15,000+ hands.

Welcome to the forum.

grouchie

11-08-2004, 09:03 PM

I understand and agree with what you are saying. however, after losing an annoying pot because someone calls a raise with a crap hand I was frustrated.
So, I posted, went to another table, and proceeded to turn my 25 into 80 in the next 60 hands based on some poor play of others.

I thank everyone for their responses, the dialogue about buy-in's was nice to read.

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 09:10 PM

i guess logic and NL experience are inversely proportional then?

yet another fine NL revelation from the man who has brought us so many, ni han suh.

fim

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 09:18 PM

Please do me a favor and keep the hostility in your responses to a minimum. If you don't agree with me and a majority of the more experienced NL posters here at 2+2, then that's fine. I guarantee if you start a new thread about this matter (asking how many buy-ins is recommended for NL play, as well as how many hands is representative of a good sample), your hypothesis will be in the minority.

In time, experience will teach you a thing or two.

cornell2005

11-08-2004, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

step 3. nut peddling carries more variance, not less. your failure to understand why may be a good reason that you're not fully comprehending this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

no you are wrong

nut pedding implies you are not taking all the +EV opportunities you can. the more edges the push, the larger your variance.

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 09:44 PM

i disagree. nut peddling involves playing fewer hands for larger pots. it involves fewer, more +EV decisions than other forms of play. this leaves more imporatnce on the profitability of each individual hand.

for example, if you played only AA/KK/QQ/AK you could probably eek out a long term profit but your swings, by hour or 100 hands or whatever, would be very great, where if you played all profitable hands, you would be taking many, many more slightly +EV proposition bets over the same number of hands.

Another analogy:
If i promised to pay you $100 if you rolled a 6 and you paid me $10 for the chance to roll, you aer obviously +EV, however if i only let you make this bet if you first roll a 6 (this roll costing you nothing), then someone taking the same bet for a payout of $80 but without the prerequisite 6 roll will obviously profit more and have lower varaince over their # of rolls. This is what you are doing when you play ~15% of hands. you are only playing ith a huge overlay, but you may not play one hand in 100 some days. you also have so much of your EV invested in those hands that getting them cracked (or having them hold up) more or less than usual will result in more swings per 100 hand or per hour.

fim

fimbulwinter

11-08-2004, 09:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Please do me a favor and keep the hostility in your responses to a minimum. If you don't agree with me and a majority of the more experienced NL posters here at 2+2, then that's fine. I guarantee if you start a new thread about this matter (asking how many buy-ins is recommended for NL play, as well as how many hands is representative of a good sample), your hypothesis will be in the minority.

In time, experience will teach you a thing or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

knowing nothing about the number of hands i've played or my experience as a NL player, your comments are at best misguided, so i will give you the benefit of the doubt and take them as such.

As of late I've seen the vast majority of the board disagreeing with you. Moreover i have not recently seen any positive contributions aside from the now requisite heckling at people with less than 1M hands played.

experience has taught me a thing or two, specifically it has taught me to be open to new ideas and to amend my own when logic and empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

perhaps even now experience is trying to teach you something...

fim

cornell2005

11-08-2004, 09:56 PM

sorry but its just not a debateable topic. when you push more edges your variance per 100 hands is way higher than if you sit and wait for 65/35 edges. especially on party.

if you want a good explanation i recommend making a new topic in the mid/high forum and asking for opinions. however it should be pretty clear by now that the question is a no-brainer.

Richie Rich

11-08-2004, 10:25 PM

Sorry, but your comment from another post...

[ QUOTE ]
you dont need any more than 10K hands to get a good figure of your winrate and you need WAY more than 50K hands to get accurate numbers for individual hands

[/ QUOTE ]

...indicates that you don't have enough "real" experience as you may think.

Also, the fact that others may agree or disagree with my posts/opinions in not indicative of whether or not I am a good player. You should know that. In fact, my level of play has actually evolved somewhat significantly (for the better) over the past 4 months, as have my returns. But I did not come to this conclusion after playing 10K hands. Nor after 20K hands.

Anyways, glad to hear that you're open to new ideas. Perhaps another experienced (and more respected) NL 2+2'er can offer their thoughts re: (1) min buy-ins, & (2) representative sample sizes.

fimbulwinter

11-09-2004, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
sorry but its just not a debateable topic. when you push more edges your variance per 100 hands is way higher than if you sit and wait for 65/35 edges. especially on party.

if you want a good explanation i recommend making a new topic in the mid/high forum and asking for opinions. however it should be pretty clear by now that the question is a no-brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

fim

fimbulwinter

11-09-2004, 12:24 AM

they already have:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1232696&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1

Are you asking for a counterexample that is on the first page of the forum because you didnt think i read any other threads?

As for sample size, i said 10K is fine to get an estimate of your winrate. if the difference between 10 and 12bb/100 is huge to you, then you'll certainly need many, many more, but that in and of itself is worthless as your game is constantly evolving and getting better.

this is the last i'll say on this topic, as it's obvious the discussion is only now relevant to you and me;

nobody should play poker with less than 80 buyins in tow so that they can feel warm and snuggly inside and be just that much more sure that they won't go broke. we'll also all play 100K hands at each level before moving up because that way we're SURE within .1BB/100 that we're beating the game and can love ourselves even that much more.

fimbulwinter the inexperienced, uneducated, losing poker player signing off...

LokiV

11-09-2004, 12:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
300 big blinds is 3 buyins at pokerstars, and 6 at party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to BIG BETS, which according to pokertracker is 2x the big blind.

The 300bb rule refers to BIG BETS. Correct?

Stingy

11-09-2004, 12:43 AM

I'm playing NL50 now and have taken stabs at NL100. The beats are still iminant. I see almost the same caliber of players that i ran into at the NL25 tables. Gotta get used to it and stick to value betting. Sry dude,

Triumph36

11-09-2004, 12:53 AM

It seems like a very simple concept.

A player who pushes every edge is going to lose more buyins quicker. They are more likely to lose every hand, and they are more likely to go on streaks of both winning and losing. A 'nut-peddler' is only going to go all-in when he thinks he has by far the best of it, and so he's going to win those hands more than 70% of the time.

Take the extreme example of a player who only goes all in when he thinks he has the way the best of it (65%, let's say), and a player who goes all in with 51% edges. Over 6 all ins, the odds that both players bust is .35^6 for the 'nut-peddler' and .49^6. It's obvious which one is higher.

Not to mention that a player who 'pushes every edge' will often get their money in when they are well behind.

Don't ask for an analogy. Just examine the numbers.

spentrent

11-09-2004, 01:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I thank everyone for their responses, the dialogue about buy-in's was nice to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad I was able to instigate a mini flame war on my first day of posting!

grouchie

11-09-2004, 01:50 AM

You accomplished something, and that's gotta be worth something no?

I'm interested to see what you can do on your 2nd day of posting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

soah

11-09-2004, 03:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
300 big blinds is 3 buyins at pokerstars, and 6 at party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to BIG BETS, which according to pokertracker is 2x the big blind.

The 300bb rule refers to BIG BETS. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

You were replying directly to a post which stated:

[ QUOTE ]
Is it better to think in terms of buy-ins rather than big blinds? I made my rule 300 big blinds for NL

[/ QUOTE ]

soah

11-09-2004, 04:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is assuming that the nut peddler only plays huge pots while the other guy never plays big pots. They are presumably playing at the same limits and would be playing pots of comparable sizes. The player that has a lower edge will have higher variance. This is an extremely basic gambling concept.

This is not to be confused by the fact that the player who pushes all his small edges will have a higher winrate; and with a large winrate you are less likely to be behind after a certain length of time.

For example, let's see you are flipping a coin and win $50 each time that it is heads but lose $25 each time it is tails (We'll call this Gamble A). You could start out with a bankroll of only $100 and have a pretty low risk of ruin because your winrate is so high -- unless you start with a horrid run of luck at the start, your bankroll will grow so fast that risk or ruin drops to nearly zero extremely quickly.

On the other hand, if you win $30 for heads but lose $25 for tails (Gamble B) a starting bankroll of $100 would not be nearly as comfortable. Even slightly bad luck will bankrupt you and it will take a long time to build up a safe bankroll.

So let's say that you are offered Gamble A once per day, and Gamble B 10 times per day. If you only have $100 to gamble with and no way to replace it, you should take Gamble A and pass on Gamble B. (It's correct to pass up on a +EV opportunity if doing so may allow you to take an even greater +EV opportunity later; google "Kelly Criterion" as well. Going bankrupt means you miss out on +EV gambles every day for the rest of your life.) With a very large bankroll you would take all of those opportunities.

cornell2005

11-13-2004, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

ive been away for a few days, but it looks like a couple of other people have posted good explanations. honestly im kinda surprised you didnt know this off the bat, and didnt get it after thining about it for a bit, as i know you are a winning player and it is a pretty simple concept.

MrFroggyX

11-14-2004, 08:49 PM

Fimbul:
You and I have disagreed before.. Mostly about sample size.. But this time I don't know what to say. I quote you:

then 5 buyins in a party-like structure is fine

This is very wrong. Your chance off going bust is huge!! I can't understand how you could give out a advice like that.. Do you want people to go bust!?
Here is my stats for 3 different NL levels on Party.. I will make a red dot each time I lost 5 buy ins or more in a session or combined.

Party NL$25: 5 buyins = $125.
http://www.applepics.com/50/userfiles/4197f93272c0f.png

Party NL$50: 5 buyins = $250.
http://www.applepics.com/50/userfiles/4197f93a3f7c3.png

Party NL$100: 5 buyins = $500.
http://www.applepics.com/50/userfiles/4197f9401ad81.png

I have counted (the red dots) to at least 11 times when I have dropped 5 or more buy ins over one or several sessions. (This is over 136,000 hands)
If I had followed your horrible advice.. Well I would have been really toast.

My Standard Deviation according to pokertracker is:
NL25:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 24.68 Big Bets(Big Blindx2)
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 32.72 Big Bets

NL50:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 22.44 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 29.82 Big Bets

NL100:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 20.00 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 27.14 Big Bets

I don't care if you believe that you need 5 buy ins as a bankroll on Party.. But when you are giving out a bad advice like that to the readers off this board.. Well then someone have to say that you are wrong. Several posters have tried to do that. But you won't listen..
Please, If you don't know what you are talking about.. Don't give out advice that are totally insane!!

soah

11-14-2004, 09:47 PM

Five buy-ins as an *initial* bankroll may be ok for a winning player in these games because within a few days they will have built up to 10+ buyins. And within a few weeks it will be 20 or 30 buyins.

However, if you continually remove money from your bankroll so that you always have exactly five buyins, then you will definately go bust.

And of course, the one big truth about risk of ruin is that the harder it is to replace your bankroll if you lose it, the more you need to protect it.

I could deposit $500 into Party and jump into the $100 capped games and be pretty sure that I wouldn't lose it. And if I did lose it, then what the hell, it only takes 3 minutes to move another $500 from my bank account. However, I'm not going to continually cash out and leave myself with only $500 for the start of every session. Sooner or later I'd have to have a bad session and lose it and need to reload. If I simply cashed out the money to my bank account I could deposit again easily. If I cashed out the money in order to buy food and pay the rent, then I'm screwed. Broke.

I guess my point is that people don't always mean the same thing when they refer to their bankroll. A purist would say that your bankroll is how much money you can lose before you have to quit playing. That's not really what most people are referring to though. For a low-stakes player losing your bankroll might just mean that you have to wait until your next paycheck to play again. Losing a "bankroll" consisting of one week's paycheck is not nearly the same as losing your past year's profits by jumping into the UB 25/50 game ($5,000 capped buy-in) with only five buy-ins.

(From this we can also conclude that if you have a "real" job then you can always start a new bankroll as needed, so going bust is less of a concern than it would be to a full-time player who has no other source of income.)

MrFroggyX

11-14-2004, 10:17 PM

Disregard my post above!!

For some strange reason I missed this:
[ QUOTE ]
if you're ok playing conservative poker, then 5 buyins in a party-like structure is fine, but if you want to push every edge, you'll need many more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the last.. crucial point.. I'm stupid.. And I'm sorry Fimbul.. /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif (But I still don't think that 5 buyins is enough even if you play "conservative poker")