Win at low limit, give it back at high limit

I've gone through a couple of cycles at Paradise where I did very well, nearly 3 BB/hour, at low limits (up to and including $2/4) only to give most or all of my winnings back at most games with stakes greater than this. My pattern is I build up a nice BR and try higher limits and just do not seem to get quality cards and when I do the 8, 4, 3, 2 outers against me seem to hit with great abandon.


The play is obviously better at high limits but honestly I don't think that is the major factor as opposed to the lack of cards and awful help from the board. I do use pokerstat to track my play and it is amazing to see the winless and/or poor card streaks I've encountered in upper limit games. I went 80 hands in a row without winning even a piece of a pot in O/8 $3/6 once while seeing about 35% of the flops. Nothing close to that has ever happened to me at $2/4 or below in many hundreds of hours of play. I'm no conspiracy theorist but it is an interesting pattern which I'm curious if anyone else has experienced.


It has happened enough so that I now know to keep my ass in low limit. That is after I spend some time away from the online games wallowing in self-pity. I guess I consider this post therapy but unfortunately none of you are going to get paid for it.

Yeah i can understand where your coming from.

I built a nice roll on PP in $20.00 tourneys in a very short amount of time. I then played 10/20 5 max for like 3 days straight...built up even a bigger roll. I then got greedy and sat in the 20/40 game and flushed it all nearly. I had aces and some guy drew a flush heads up agaist me. I then flopped top set of queens and lost to a 4 card straight.(hands that cost a lot) It happens in all limits i know, but it does seem strange that it happens when your "taking a shot" It just happens...do not fret, keep your nose to the grindstone!

But in no way is PP rigged trust me.


yours truly,


3 2 1

"But in no way is PP rigged trust me."


HUH?

All i meant buy that was- bigger games are just as straight as the smaller ones...


3 2 1

I have a friend who I am continously transfering

money to..More often then not he will build his

stake up to $500-$1000 in low limits then proceed to lose it all in the higher limits ($5-$10 & up; usually $10-$20 +).


Myself, I do notice some differences between

$2-$4 and $3-$6....Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I don't have any problems making the transition between the two...$5-$10 limits are

also very beatable in my opinion...Taking slightly above avg. poker skills to beat, however

your opponents skill levels between $3-$6 and $5-$10 vs. $3-6 and $2-$4 are much wider.


So basically only time will tell, especially if you still feel confident at the levels your playing. But based on aggression levels, skill, and limit differentials, I don't think your BR requirements are all that much higher between $2-4 and $3-6...So keep taking your shots.

I'm never playing higher than 3 6 online. First I live 30 hour from a large cardroom with some very soft comp, and 2nd I think the temptation to collude in a virtually impossible to detect manor is very high for some people. I'm sure the high-profile 20 40 on paradise is carefully watched, but how about the 20-odd tables between 5/10 and 15/30? Not worth my time IMO - B&M's are just all around easier anyways.

To go 80 hands of Omaha hilo without even splitting a pot is obviously pretty damn unlucky. However, 35% is probably too high a flop percentage for this game. Its a game where the best starting hands have a far greater edge than they do in Hold 'Em.

"Its a game where the best starting hands have a far greater edge than they do in Hold 'Em."


All I know know about Omaha 8/B would fit in the belly of a gnat, along with Doug Duke's heart.


That being said, I don't believe this statement is true. According to Ray Z, most pre-flop hands run 3-2 favorite over lesser hands in Omaha 8/B. While in Hold'em the better pre-flop hands are about 4-1 favorite.


Have a nice day.


MS Sunshine

When I move up to limits where my bankroll becomes less than about 100BB, the money becomes too big of a factor. I change my play, become tight passive, and fail to bet/raise hands where I should.

IMO, the answer is Bankroll requirement.


"My pattern is I build up a nice BR and try higher limits and just do not seem to get quality cards and when I do the 8, 4, 3, 2 outers against me seem to hit with great abandon".


You didn't mention what you meant by "a nice BR" but if it wasn't at least 100BB of the limit that you are moving up to then it wouldn't surprise me that you "just do not seem to get quality cards and when you do the 8, 4, 3, 2 outers against you seem to hit with great abandon".


Actually (IMO) even 100BB is too low but would be the bare minimun scale I would use to play at any limit, even if it's just taking a shot. Of course, to play at a given limit ongoing, I prefer to have 200-300BB or more as the minimum.


CreamPuff's friend was a perfect example. Built up a $500 to a $1000 BR at the LL and then moved up to $10-20 and bust. $1000 is only 50 BB in a $10-20 game!


The main reason for BR requirements IMO is to be able to withstand the very thing you say happens to you when you move up. And that is "just do not seem to get quality cards and when I do the 8, 4, 3, 2 outers against me seem to hit with great abandon".


Now if you do start with a sufficient BR then I would say maybe you should take a look at your starting requirements. Playing certain hands from certain positions against weaker opponents just aren't profitable when you move up not only in limits but your opponents are tougher as well.


Just my thoughts, something to think about.


KC50

Don't listen to the old man KC, too much $$$ not good u gonna lose it all, start small and make a big score. Works for me everytime!

HAHAHAHAHAAHAA

I didn't phrase it very well at all, but there are lots of hands with a huge advantage in Omaha8, compared to Hold 'Em. You should certainly see FEWER flops in O8, but thankfully (for me) most people do the opposite.


Quote from Steve BAdger's site: "Not counting AA and perhaps KK, Holdem hands run much closer in value than Omaha hands do -- urban myths not to the contrary. If you don't know and appreciate this basic concept, you are going to be in trouble in Omaha. Omaha has a fairly large group of hands that will win at double the rate of randomish hands. Few Holdem hands can say the same. "

I have experienced the exact same thing twice. The first time it was my first session at 5-10 that broke me. This time I lasted about 3 or 4 break-even sessions before one bad night sent me back down.


I seem to win consistently at 1-2 and 2-4. I have done very well at 3-6 and actually cashed out for the first time after a few good nights. But I try 5-10 and seem to hit the wall. I think what the other posters have said about bankroll is key. I had 1,500 when I started at 5-10, but after a bad session I was back at 1,000 and playing scared. I will wait until I have deeper pockets before trying again.


The players are much better at 3-6 and 5-10. I have also experienced the 4-5 BB's per hour wins at 2-4, but it's not because we are so good, it's the guys chasing to the river with draws or weak kickers that make that extra money for us. I won just as many hands at 5-10, I just didn't win as many big pots. You definitely have to play better at these levels.


Good luck, see you at the tables.

"The main reason for BR requirements IMO is to be able to withstand the very thing you say happens to you when you move up."


The 300BB bankroll is required to withstand the unlikely worst case scenarios, like starting out from the get-go with a long string of horrible cards and bad beats. However, having a short bankroll doesn't make it more likely the cards will start off bad. The cards don't know. Bob, the original poster, said that EVERYTIME he stepped up in limits the unlikely worst case scenario happened. His question is: was it very bad luck or something else?


Tom D

"Bob, the original poster, said that EVERYTIME he stepped up in limits the unlikely worst case scenario happened. His question is: was it very bad luck or something else?"


I think you misconstrued what I meant, Tom.


Like I said before, IMO yes, it was most likely "something else" like too short a BR for the higher limit.


I never said a 300BB BR was required to take shots at higher limits. I said 100BB would suffice. What I said was, a BR of at least 200 to 300BB would be a good BR to play at any level ongoing.


These are my opinions that are based on my actual experiences. If you don't agree, that's cool, too. Use whatever works for you.


Keep trying to play hard Tom.


KC50

If you write a post like this, you are probably frustrated, and if you are frustrated, you probably tilt, and if you tilt you will lose (more than you should).


Anyway, it's basic poker economy, isn't it? The money doesn't only move clockwise around the table, it also moves up the limits. Most people move up the limits until they find the limit where they become losers, and then oscillate over this border. Don't ask me why. Probably some macho bullshit thing.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I don't think you addressed Bob's concerns. He reported that everytime he moved up he got bad cards to play. Accepting that statement at face value, the size of his bankroll, IMO, is irrelevant, since a small bankroll doesn't cause bad cards to come off the deck.


I believe what your response to Bob implied was that he really hasn't gotten "bad" cards each time he stepped up. In other words, you are disputing the facts as he presented them. To do that, you have to make the assumption that he doesn't know good cards from bad cards. That struck me as a little unfair.


Good luck,

Tom D

"He reported that everytime he moved up he got bad cards to play. Accepting that statement at face value, the size of his bankroll, IMO, is irrelevant, since a small bankroll doesn't cause bad cards to come off the deck".


I will have to kindly disagree, Tom. I think having a small BR would make it easier (and the best reason) to be affected by getting bad cards as the "luck of the draw" in the short run. Very similar to being short stacked in a tournament.


Then you said, "To do that, you have to make the assumption that he doesn't know good cards from bad cards. That struck me as a little unfair".


I didn't mean it that way and agree that would be unfair.


Keep playing hard.


KC50

IMO, the worst thing a poker player can do is play with scared money. The harder he tries to not let it affect him, the worse he plays. It's a bad trap.


Tom D