100NL to 200NL question

[DesertCat]

I only have 11.5k hands at six max 100NL (Party/Empire), but it's gone very well (mostly two tabling). I had about 8k hands at 100NL full ring right before that and was profitable, but not great.

I'm trying to decide if I"m just on a hot streak or if my game is esp. suited to the six handed NL. I have about 30 buyins for the 200NL and am thinking about moving up. I won't bore you with my stats, but I'd like to ask if anyone can describe any differences between the typical players and games at both levels. I.e. are they pretty similar, and it's just a bankroll issue, or are the 200NL players much more aggressive, tricky, or skilled, etc?

[LuvDemNutz]

I think you should play more 100NL to make sure you are a true winning player at that level.

25,000 - 35,000 hands.

I played 200NL before I really knew what I was doing - managed to break even for awhile and then got hammered a few times.

I dropped dowm to 100NL and found it much easier. A lot more softer, looser players at that level IMO.

[twomarks]

Maybe someone can help me out here as to what a good sample size is.

Now - I know that I have a small sample size - 2100 hands and a PT BB/100 hands = 9.77.

This may or may not be good when compared to others with more experience but here's my line of thinking - please let me know where I'm going wrong:

If I've played 10k hands and I'm averaging somewhere between 5 - 9 bb/100 hands, that means that I've had the opportunity to make more than 10K decisions when you take into consideration pre and post flop play. Now, after 10k flips of a coin everyone expects the percentages to migrate to their theoretical statistical average - wouldn't the same be true of a poker player? Certainly the more hands you have in your sample size the more closely your results are to reality, but I have a hard time thinking that a good, or a bad run of luck lasts for 10k hands (or roughly 166 hours of play when 1 tabling).

If this is the wrong thread to pose this question, let me know and I'll repost it in the probability section.

Thanks,

twomarks

[schwza]

i played the 200 for a while. the competition is better, and significantly more aggressive. i think the most worthwhile way to play it is to just play the 100 while you're on the uber-long waitlist and then only enter the game if there are recognizable fish.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
but I have a hard time thinking that a good, or a bad run of luck lasts for 10k hands (or roughly 166 hours of play when 1 tabling).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it can and does.

There's been countless topics like this on the general board. Diablo once said he'd had a break even streak of 30k hands.

[Utah]

Zero difference in play in IMHO.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe someone can help me out here as to what a good sample size is.

Now - I know that I have a small sample size - 2100 hands and a PT BB/100 hands = 9.77.

This may or may not be good when compared to others with more experience but here's my line of thinking - please let me know where I'm going wrong:

If I've played 10k hands and I'm averaging somewhere between 5 - 9 bb/100 hands, that means that I've had the opportunity to make more than 10K decisions when you take into consideration pre and post flop play. Now, after 10k flips of a coin everyone expects the percentages to migrate to their theoretical statistical average - wouldn't the same be true of a poker player? Certainly the more hands you have in your sample size the more closely your results are to reality, but I have a hard time thinking that a good, or a bad run of luck lasts for 10k hands (or roughly 166 hours of play when 1 tabling).

If this is the wrong thread to pose this question, let me know and I'll repost it in the probability section.

Thanks,

twomarks

[/ QUOTE ]

Flipping a coin results in one of two outcomes. It is a simple exercise.

Poker is extremely complex and you can literally face an infinite set of situations/outcomes. Therefore a much larger sample size is necessary to get you close to your "theoretical statistical average".

[Benal]

Not much difference, but watch out for a few players. Data mine the 200 for a few weeks...

[TrailofTears]

[ QUOTE ]
significantly more aggressive

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be too if I had to wait six hours to play at the only three tables around. Can't figure out the reasoning for having so few 200NL tables...

- Trail

[steaknshake925]

You can also consider playing 200nl on some of the other sites than Party. Most sites have 100BB stacks, so you'll be playing the same 1/2 blinds but with a $200 stack. This is a good way to step up your stakes while introducing less variance than you'll probably encounter in the party 200. 1/2nl is soft pretty much everywhere you go so you don't have to worry about the quality of games.

[twomarks]

I understand that you would certainly need a big sample size and that good, and bad, streak can last 10k or more hands. But how many 10K streaks are there? What I mean is what percentage of 10k sample sizes are significantly divergent from a 20k or 30k sample size?

Thanks for your patience,

twomarks

[beta1607]

I strongly recommend doing this - especially if you ever want to move up to bigger games like the 2/4 and 5/10 on sites like Prima with $400 and $1000 stacks.