Moving up from the $50's

[UMTerp]

How much harder does it get in the $100's? I assume that the variance isn't much different (buy-in wise at least) since the standard deviation for these things seems to be about 1.6 regardless of the buy-in. Will any player with an ROI greater than 20% in the $50's be able to beat the $100's? For those of you that have made this move, has it been profitable? Are a lot of the same players present? Just general stuff, I know, but trying to get a feel for things. I have the 30 Buy-In thing built up, so that's not an issue. In B&M, every time I move up in limits, I always think "these players are just as bad, but have more money to spend". That's not always the case online though. Any advice is appreciated.

[Irieguy]

Both Eastbay and myself have written about having surprising difficulty moving from the $55's to the $109's. I just spoke with Daliman and TipsyJoker about this topic, and they both feel that it should be a profitable transition if you can beat the $55's for >20% ROI.

In spite of my personal difficulty with the step-up, I still feel like I will be playing the $109's exclusively and beating them within a few months. But Eastbay's numbers have given me cause for pause.

My advice would be to go for it and expect to beat the $109's at a >10% ROI clip. But keep in mind the lackluster performance of some other 2+2ers and be willing to move back down pretty quickly if variance is unkind.

Irieguy

[UMTerp]

Thanks.

Right now, I 8-table the $27 and $60 Turbos, usually 4 and 4 at a time. I've only been keeping good record for a month, but I'm 99.99% sure I'm a winner player at the $50's, as I have over a thousand SNGs record already. I actually have a higher ROI in the $60's, though I don't expect that to last (22.2% vs. 24.8%). I'm thinking about goig 3-3-2 for a while (two $105+$9 Turbos). Do you (or anyone else) have experience mutli-tabling such varied buy-in tournaments at the same time? Good way to work the $100's into my rotation, or is the play different enough to just confuse me with all those games going on at the same time?

[Nick B.]

If you are talking about Party, the 100's are ridiculously easy.

[Irieguy]

I play 6-8 tables at once, and often play different limits at the same time. Sometimes I even play $55's, $33's, and a STEP tournament at the same time.

This is probably not ideal, but it seems to be the most profitable per hour for me. So, I don't see much of a problem mixing them in the way you plan.

Irieguy

[UMTerp]

I play Stars for some reason or another. Never tried Party - not sure why.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about Party, the 100's are ridiculously easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ROI constitutes "ridiculously easy?"

While they may be easy for you, I don't think they are ridiculously easy for most players who are beating the $55's for around 20%. I beat the $55s for around 30% and I suspect my ROI is much lower in the $109s, although I don't have the sample size to be sure. And I certainly don't consider them "ridiculously" easy for me.

eastbay