10/20 troubles

[arkady]

I tried the 10/20 (full) game at party poker and have logged in about 4k hands over which I am down about 80 BBs. From PT I can see that the tables are about 4% tighter than the 5/10, coming in at a pretty depressing 26% SF.

Problem is the number of bad players per full table is still amazingly high with people who go to the river no matter what, any ace, any suited, etc etc etc. So its not like they are not beatable, because they surely are, but after 13 or so hours it has been a very frustrating ordeal.

Does anyone play the 10/20 full? Anyone tried it? Should I just cut my losses and go back to 5/10 and build towards 15/30?

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is the number of bad players per full table is still amazingly high

[/ QUOTE ]

Treat 5-10 as your standard game, but keep data mining 10-20 and sit when you find one of the guys you mentioned above. If these type of guys are typically sitting, play 10-20 as your standard game and look to get involved in pots when these guys are in and avoiding the tougher spots, to the extent you can. But seriously, while these 10-20 full games can be beaten for more than the 5-10 consider the 6-max alternatives, its more fun and will force you to learn how to play out of the blinds and in marginal spots. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[arkady]

hey jr, thats defiintely a good route - mining in process. the 6 max game however, is something I suck at, because I am still down overall in 5/10 6 max /images/graemlins/frown.gif Not sure what I am doing wrong there, its not like I loosen up when i go to 6 max, but slowly and systematically the money drains.

what do u play now JR?

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
consider the 6-max alternatives, its more fun and will force you to learn how to play out of the blinds and in marginal spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had played 6 max at some point. I have considered dropping back to 10/20 6max just to play it and develop certain aspects of my game - but not yet.

Needless to say, I think JR's advice here is good - you will learn a lot playing 6max.

[DataMiner]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like I loosen up when i go to 6 max

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably part of the issue. You need to loosen up somewhat (relative to a full table).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
because they surely are, but after 13 or so hours it has been a very frustrating ordeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Only 13 hours? What did you expect? To come on and instantly kill the game?

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is the number of bad players per full table is still amazingly high with people who go to the river no matter what, any ace, any suited, etc etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a problem? Sounds ideal.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I just cut my losses and go back to 5/10 and build towards 15/30?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't beat the 10-20 game you described above, you aren't going to beat the 15-30.

I'd say go back and play lower until losing in a game you described as a problem is seen as a welcome mat. Based on your post, you're not ready to move up. At least not mindset-wise.

b

[BusterStacks]

I have been considering a shot at 10/20... What kind of roll do I need to sustain the variance if I live off of my bankroll? I figure 500bb... For the record, I can't beat 6max for some reason, although I think I have gotten much better since I took a few stabs at it.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of roll do I need to sustain the variance if I live off of my bankroll? I figure 500bb

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a good number. I'd also have an extra 5-10K non-roll in money behind for living expenses during the down times. The amount depends on your monthly nut you have to make to sustain your bills. You want at least 5+ months worth. If you dip into it, replenish it before adding to your roll. You might not ever have to dip into it. Remember, you have to provide your own benefits, fallback money when you live off of it. No one else is going to do it for you.

Others may have other opinions/ideas on it.

Last thing, learn how to manage money. Poker players aren't exactly high on the list for recieving loans.

b

[DataMiner]

If you're living off of your bankroll, you need at least 300 BB plus the amount that you need to live. If you can live off of 200 BB, then 500 BB is fine.

Keep in mind that 300 BB is the bare minimum needed for any limit. If you dip even to 299, you should technically drop to a lower limit.

Some have posted that 800 BB should be enough to allow you to stay at your current limit forver. Since you're living off of your bankroll, a conservative 800 BB may be a pretty good idea.

[sthief09]

the 10/20 is a lot like the 5/10, pretty tight and pretty low variance. if you're able to step in and be a solid winner, then you'd probably only need 400, or 350 to take a 50 BB shot

[sthief09]

sorry to hijack the thread, but I've always wondered: suppose you are a proven winning player at a limit and you have 599 BB and then go on a 300 BB swing. since 300 is close to the most a solid winning player can swing down (excluding hyper aggressive games), then wouldn't 299 technically be enough, since mathematically it should be extremely improbable that you keep swinging down. I know probabilities only apply toward the future but this has always intrigued/confused me

[J.R.]

16 tables of .5-1.


Here's some bankroll stuff, its not great at explaining things but confirms your understanding. Go mess around in probability, the posters are generally helpful in there.

something (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=probability&Number=1087440 &Forum=f11&Words=%2Bbankroll&Searchpage=0&Limit=30 0&Main=1073945&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&dat erange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertyp e=&bodyprev=#Post1087440)

this too (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=probability&Number=437232& Forum=f11&Words=%2Bbankroll&Searchpage=0&Limit=250 &Main=432099&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&dater ange=1&newerval=4&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype= &bodyprev=#Post437232)

[sfer]

If I understand you, the conditional works the opposite. I flip a coin 1,000,000 consecutive times and it comes up heads every time. What's the probability of it being heads on the next flip? It turns out it's now identical to the probability of me flipping heads for the 1,000,000,001st time, not the other way around.

[sthief09]

ok I think I might've finally figured this out, but I'm not sure. someone please tell me if this is right.

let's say you have a 600 BB bankroll, and for that your RoR is 1/10,000, or .0001. in order for that to happen, you have to have a 300 BB downswing, and then another 300 BB downswing (or 200 then 400, or 599 then 1, etc). let's say the RoR for a 300 BB bankroll is 1/100. the chances of losing 300, then 300 is 1/100*1/100 = 1/10,000.

so even though losing 600 BB is highly unlikely, once you've lost 300 BB, you've already hit a 1/100 longshot, which is losing 300 BB. now all you have left is 300 BB. it's still unlikely you'll lose it, but all it'll take is another 1/100 longshot.

Nottom's analogy that JR posted really helped me understand this conceptually

[sthief09]

ok I think I might've finally figured this out, but I'm not sure. someone please tell me if this is right.

let's say you have a 600 BB bankroll, and for that your RoR is 1/10,000, or .0001. in order for that to happen, you have to have a 300 BB downswing, and then another 300 BB downswing (or 200 then 400, or 599 then 1, etc). let's say the RoR for a 300 BB bankroll is 1/100. the chances of losing 300, then 300 is 1/100*1/100 = 1/10,000.

so even though losing 600 BB is highly unlikely, once you've lost 300 BB, you've already hit a 1/100 longshot, which is losing 300 BB. now all you have left is 300 BB. it's still unlikely you'll lose it, but all it'll take is another 1/100 longshot.

Nottom's analogy that JR posted really helped me understand this conceptually

[arkady]

man, thats harsh - dont treat me like a fish bernie. The primary reason why I would jump 10/20 (like most others mind you) is because it is statistically looser than 10/20 and at times even looser than 5/10.

NO, its not a problem that there are fish, the problem is that they are there and I can't beat them. So what is different?

Similarly if you say that 13 hours is hardly enough to determine anything, then I suppose you cant draw a conclusion of whether or not I can beat the 15/30 game.

Not sure why I have to be addressing these points.

[arkady]

you seriously are playing 16 tables of .5/1!?

[sthief09]

I don't know why bernie's posts are being taken so critically lately. he's right. you're worrying after a really small sample. also, the way you stated one of your sentences was ambiguous. it could've sounded like you don't like bad players if read the wrong way.

and even if 10/20 is a tougher game than 5/10, it's twice the stakes, which I think makes it more appealing. even if a good player could only squeeze out 1 BB/100 at 10/20, that's like 2 BB/100 at 5/10, which is better than either of us are doing. I think that would be the reason to go there. you really should try the 6-max. I had to be convinced to, and I'm glad I'm playing it. it's a much easier game. lesser players than you are winning more there because the games are so soft. that was my inspiration to make the switch.

[sublime]

that was my inspiration to make the switch.

and inform the entire SS population at the same time /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

you really should try the 6-max. I had to be convinced to, and I'm glad I'm playing it. it's a much easier game. lesser players than you are winning more there because the games are so soft.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it when people say that, because it makes the fact I'm 180BB down in the $5/10 6-max game after 25k hands seem so much worse.

There are three things I know about the $5/10 6-max:

1) the games are soft

2) the swings are big

3) I suck.

Guy.

[bernie]

It's a good idea to keep your 'playing' roll and your 'living expenses' backup roll seperate.

b

[bernie]

Look again at your post. Maybe a few months from now, you'll see what im trying to tell you. Ill try to explain again.

[ QUOTE ]
dont treat me like a fish

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you were a fish. I said your mindset isn't ready for a higher limit yet. At least not to move up fully.

[ QUOTE ]
NO, its not a problem that there are fish, the problem is that they are there and I can't beat them. So what is different?

[/ QUOTE ]

You tell me. You're the one who brought it up. What factor is the difference if not the players? The difference, once again, is how this limit is affecting you mentally. You've only been there 13 hours. Think back, haven't you lost for 13+ hours before at your main limit? Of course you have if you've played for any significant amount of time. Everyone does at some point no matter how good they are. So that's the same, the players you've played against are somewhat similar. What is it then?

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly if you say that 13 hours is hardly enough to determine anything, then I suppose you cant draw a conclusion of whether or not I can beat the 15/30 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you brought it up as a factor in your success at beating the game. You know better than to base it off of 13 hours. You're better than to use this.

Take shots at the higher limit, but I wouldn't move up altogether yet. Nor would I jump to an even higher limit and bypass a limit with gravy players on it. Why would you do that? You're not thinking clearly here, imo. One beauty of online is that you can ease into a limit much easier through multi tabling.

Yes, it is also common to feel this way when moving up. The monetary size of losses, even if they are the same bet/unit-wise as your normal limit, can affect your mentality of the game.

An idea: When moving up, figure you will lose at first. If anything, because you have to adjust for the higher limit. Not just playwise, since play may be the same, but any initial hit to your roll is much bigger. It can have a magnifying affect. This can have a mental affect as you may see all the time you put in to build your roll that far as wasted. Or that you're wasting it on this limit and really don't like the thought of having to go back and regrind it back up again. It's a common mental hurdle to get over when moving up.

Im also thinking this jump is a little wider gap than you may have done before. You're doubling the limit. Im guessing before 5-10 you played 3-6 or 4-8. It's also easier to transition when the gap isn't as big.

Anyways, If i thought you were really a fish, or had no hope, i wouldn't have typed as much as I just did here.

Hope this helps explain a little more where I was coming from.

b

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that 300 BB is the bare minimum needed for any limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. 300 BB is the typical amount that a 1BB/hr needs to survive fluctuations. It is not the bare minimum. Someone who is crushing a game for 2.5BB/hr (or whatever the online equivalent would be) could probably get by with less and someone who has an unusually low variance could get by with less. Similarly, someone who is only barely a winning a player or someone who plays in very wild games against unpredictable games would likely need more.

I tend to have a very low variance and have never went on a downswing of 300 BB or more. That isn't proof of anything of course, as I could just have been lucky so far. It sounds like a lot of people here play primarily online. The online opponents tend to be better and more aggressive and the lack of reads mean that you are forced to call down in spots where you wouldn't have to in a live game. So it's possible that everyone playing online needs a bankroll of at least 300 BB's. But I don't agree with the general statement that this the bare minimum that is ever needed for any limit. It is better to think of as the typical, standard number that should be adjusted down or (more likely) up as circumstances require.