nanolimits - a waste of time?

[bubbahotep]

I've seen people say that .01/.02, .02/.04, etc are a waste of time.

It seems to me if you can't make money there, (where players should be weaker) you shouldn't be able to make money at any higher limits (where players are generally better).

What is the popular belief on this?

If nanolimits really are a waste of time, what is the rationale for this belief?

Thanks

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen people say that .01/.02, .02/.04, etc are a waste of time.

If nanolimits really are a waste of time, what is the rationale for this belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they are a waste of time from a money making standpoint. One should easily be able to throw in $200 and at least start at .25/.50. In my opinion, it just takes too long to build up the roll that way.

However, they can be useful for someone new to learning the game. If one is extremely inexperienced, a fair amount of experience at the nano limits can work out some of the questions and confusion all beginning players have.

Some people believe these limits are a waste of time because the players "don't play right". This is not a good way to think about playing against bad players.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me if you can't make money there, (where players should be weaker) you shouldn't be able to make money at any higher limits (where players are generally better).

What is the popular belief on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why this would have to be the case.
But of course it requires more skill to be able to beat tougher games. Still, beating extremely loose games for huge winrates is a skill in of itself.

The limits don't become much harder until you reach .50/1, and even then the games are still very soft. For games above that limit, it heavily depends on the site.
For instance, on Party the 1/2 full ring games are generally tighter than the 2/4 full ring games.

The games are beatable up to very high limits. Whether you can beat them or not depends on your own natural ability and dedication to the game.

[Paul2432]

If your goal is to improve your play without losing too much money then I think the nanolimits are great, and certainly far superior to the play money tables. Some caution is advised, though, as the play at the nanolimits can be very bad. Some strategy adjustments will be needed to move up.

If you play for fun, the nanolimits are also great. Even a terrible player, or a great player who feels like playing like a maniac, will only lose a few dollars over the course of a session. Less then the cost of one beer in most bars.

Paul

[sexypanda]

I think the nano-limits are great if you're very inexperienced. I started playing about 7-8 months ago and was soo bad that I had to carry a piece of paper around with me to remind myself that a flush beat a straight. I signed up with Paradise and they gave me $2 free. I took this to the .02/.04 table and started grinding away. Now 8 months, about 6 2+2 books and 200 posts later, I'm beating the Party 2/4. I was speaking with a friend about this a while ago and he said that if I started at the .5/1 table to begin with I could have raked in a ton more, but I really believe that I would have dumped $200 to the more experienced players and probably quit playing. This way there was no risk and I slowly and comfortably worked my way up.

[LSU POKER PIMP]

not really, your not gonna make enough money to make up for the time you put in, but these limits show you how patience and playing the odds make for the best poker play. A great place for a beginner who doesnt want to gamble with a lot of money.

[richrf]

I agree with all of the comments on this thread. I found playing at nanolimits to be a great way to learn about:

1) Learning to how to quickly determine "outs"
2) Discounting outs
3) Probabilities that others have a better hand (this is especially important when evaluating odds).
4) Learning how to spot "nuts"
5) Learning opening hands
6) How to play at different positions

etc.

Different sites have different players and play changes at different levels. Play dramatically changes between limit, pot-limit, and no-limit.

There are many sites that will start you off with free deposits, including several of the Prima sites, Absolute, Party (through affiliates, but be careful about giving them your password). etc. Right now I am comfortably playing at .25/.50. I am avoiding higher levels for many reasons right now. But nano is a great place to start. There is a lot to learn about online poker and I don't assume or take anything for granting. I have chosen to take a step-by-step approach. After my first month, I am up about $300 (14+/100BB) just playing for amusement purposes.

[afk]

I started at $.05/.10 just over a year ago and spent a few months getting the bankroll for $.25/.50. I'm playing 2/4 now with a 5/10 bankroll.... it wasn't a waste of time.

[richrf]

I wanted to also add that I found the $50 Freerolls that are run a few times each day on Absolute very useful and fun - though they run long (2000 players). I play them once in a while, but after 3 hours, I wonder whether it is worth it for the $5.00 prize. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Dead]

"Anyone who beats smaller games, but fails to beat larger games, is almost certainly confused about poker concepts in general."

-David Sklansky.

We'll see how I fare in 4-5 years. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Daddy Cool]

nano limits are not a waste of time if you're a new player trying to get your feet wet at poker. it gives you cheap experience to try to get better and is recommended before you sink your teeth into a higher limit game.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyone who beats smaller games, but fails to beat larger games, is almost certainly confused about poker concepts in general."

-David Sklansky.

We'll see how I fare in 4-5 years. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Far be it from me to disagree with DS or the poster, but that quote sounds backwards. Of course I can beat the $0.05/0.10 at Pacific but not the $300/600 at Bellagio! While I personally may still be confused about poker concepts in general, many people who aren't would still struggle in a really really big game.

Reverse the quote and I would take it to be referring to those people who are convinced that they could never win in a really loose game. That means they're not adjusting their play appropriately, and hence may lack some fundamental poker understanding.

[ewile]

NOT a waste of time.

[@bsolute_luck]

well i'm a new player to poker and i'm getting ready to enter the arena soon, so i'd love suggestions. i've played play money for a couple months and can beat it, have been posting here for 1mo., have read SSH at least once, and know what beats what and general strategy for a solid poker game.

i've studied people's hands and really worked on my preflop choices. my starting bankroll: $200. i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

i've studied people's hands and really worked on my preflop choices. my starting bankroll: $200. i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no problem with this.

[3N1GM4]

I definitely don't think the nanolimits are a bad idea for someone just starting out who wants to try poker without the obvious annoyances of some people who play at play money tables.

I started playing on a Prima site about 7 months ago, with a free deposit of $10. I started on .10/.20, because I too thought that anything smaller was probably a waste of time, and believed (as many beginning players surely do) that I was a lot better than I was.

I quickly dropped to .05/.10 once I realised that I was not in fact any good and needed to learn the game more. Through a combination of playing nano/micro limits and reading 2+2 books, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

So I would definitely recommend nano limits to anyone starting out.

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't think the nanolimits are a bad idea for someone just starting out who wants to try poker without the obvious annoyances of some people who play at play money tables.

I started playing on a Prima site about 7 months ago, with a free deposit of $10. I started on .10/.20, because I too thought that anything smaller was probably a waste of time, and believed (as many beginning players surely do) that I was a lot better than I was.

I quickly dropped to .05/.10 once I realised that I was not in fact any good and needed to learn the game more. Through a combination of playing nano/micro limits and reading 2+2 books, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

So I would definitely recommend nano limits to anyone starting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

holy explicative! your bankroll is $3000, why are you still playing .25/.5?

[Robert Ezzo]

When I first started out, I played at PokerStars .02/.04 and .05/.10 limits. I had $50, but I also knew that although I "knew how to play poker", I wasn't really all that good. Playing at those limits for about a month gave me time to put into practice what I had been reading in a pile of different books, and to get used to the ebb and flow of the game. I then moved up to .25/.50 at PokerRoom with (what I know now) was way too small of a bankroll, but I think the experience I gained at the nano-limits was invaluable to me. I recommend that approach to anyone who is a relative beginner and wants to play online.

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, but if you've put in the time to make a $3000 bankroll at .25/.50, you've missed out on a LOT more profitable games. I'm gonna take a wild and uneducated guess and say you could have made twice that in the same amount of time had you moved up.

[AKQJ10]

afk:

You raise a valid point, and I find myself wondering at what point I should move up. I don't think the "classic" 300 big bet response is always the best solution, and of course waiting until you have 3000 big bets at the higher limit is way beyond the pale. (Mangatang (http://www.kingscascade.com/OnLine.html), among others, advocates waiting for 300 big bets on his excellent lesson plan, but I still think it's too conservative.)

Obviously much has to do with one's own comfort level. But it would also be nice to have some idea how to answer the question, "If I'm beating a limit at 1.25 BB/hr in 40 hours, what's the probability that I'm actually able to beat it for 1.0 BB/hr long-term?" This would be sort of a Bayesian problem, I believe, but a very complex one.

Also, it gets more complicated when (like me) you want to learn more than just Hold 'Em. If I'm +100 BB at (say) .25/.50 HE and +50 BB at the same limit O8, is that roughly equivalent to being +150 BB for just one game? Or do I need a bigger "proof of concept" for each game I play?

At present my plan is to grind out the smaller limit until I 'm bankrolled for roughly 150-200 big bets in the larger limit, and then start experimenting with the larger one in VERY limited buy-ins (10-20 big bets, yeah I know that's tiny), gradually increasing the mix of games I play at the higher limit until I'm fully comfortable with it. While this plan is still subject to high variance, it's at least self-correcting in the same sense as Mangatang's. I don't move up unless I'm either good enough or really lucky, and if I'm really lucky then at least I'm bankrolled to take a few hits before I realize I'm not good enough. However, unlike Mangatang I probably wouldn't wait until I was -100 big bets at a higher limit to move down.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find Paradise to be much tougher games than Pacific, and I think most people would agree from what I've read here. Of course I'd rather you fish in different waters, so I'll point out that with Pac you're sacrificing hand histories to all intents and purposes. So yeah, go with Paradise. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[AncientPC]

If you're a new poker player, it's not a waste of time.

If you're not a new poker player, it is a waste of time.

[3N1GM4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, but if you've put in the time to make a $3000 bankroll at .25/.50, you've missed out on a LOT more profitable games. I'm gonna take a wild and uneducated guess and say you could have made twice that in the same amount of time had you moved up.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, that figure includes a couple of sizable tournament wins too, I should've really worked out how much I've made actually playing ring games... But I can't be bothered. I know I'm good enough for .25/.50 right now, and not good enough for .50/1 yet. Simple as that.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I know I'm good enough for .25/.50 right now, and not good enough for .50/1 yet. Simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between .25/.50 and .50/1 is extremely minimal.

[afk]

Agreed, the difference between $.25/.50 and $.5/1 is miniscule to non-existant. In fact, I went from Stars $.25/.50 to Party $.50/1 and I would say that the Stars game was a liiiiitle bit tougher than the party game. But in any case, congrats on your tourney wins. The bottom line is if you don't feel comfortable playing higher (even with the bankroll) than by all means take your time.

[flapgreen]

This may sound like a dumb question but what consitutes a new player?

[AKQJ10]

A very good question, actually. I've logged maybe 100-200 hours each at micro-limit hold em and O8. I have a lot to learn, but I'm guessing that I probably could beat say Pacific 1/2. I just don't want to waste the money if I'm wrong.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
This may sound like a dumb question but what consitutes a new player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really depends on the player, some learn faster than others.

To me, it basically means if you've never played "real poker" before and by real poker I mean actually applying strategy you read here on the forums.

Or if you've never played for real money before. I started on Party at the lowest level (.5/1) with $100 and didn't bust out, a big part was definately beginners' luck. Hell, I even played the 1/2 6-max tables with a $120 BR. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[flapgreen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may sound like a dumb question but what consitutes a new player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really depends on the player, some learn faster than others.

To me, it basically means if you've never played "real poker" before and by real poker I mean actually applying strategy you read here on the forums.

Or if you've never played for real money before. I started on Party at the lowest level (.5/1) with $100 and didn't bust out, a big part was definately beginners' luck. Hell, I even played the 1/2 6-max tables with a $120 BR. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet! I started out about a year ago with play money on pokerroom and then started playing .01/.02nl and 5+1nl on paradise about 4 months ago. I also play in a local tourney with some friends once a month and played out in Vegas a few weeks ago. When I first started playing with my buddies, I did alright but now I'm starting to beat them fairly consistently. They've stayed the same and I've gotten much better. Funny thing is, I didn't realize how bad they were until I started getting better. I started out kind of slow online but I've now began to win much more consistently. I've also read Cloutier's and Harrington's books on nl and have been trying to apply them. Although I usually only get to play for about 1-2 hours a day, I feel like I'm ready to move up a step.

[Hedge Henderson]

Bubbahotep (love the handle, BTW), unless you're rich or already know the game very well, nanolimits are certainly not a waste of time. For that matter, neither are the play-money games.

Richrf posted a list of valuable things you can learn, inexpensively, at nanolimts. One thing that is so often overlooked, though, is patience. You learn to wait for your hands, and not to go ballistic when someone catches their miracle out on the river to take down that 35BB pot. I can't tell you how many times it's helped me in home games.

The swings can be worse (in terms of BBs) in nanolimits, but they hurt less financially, and that experience can help you avoid tilting when you happen upon a bad run that really hurts when you move to higher limits.

People talk about learning "bad habits" but really, the only bad habit you have to worry about is assuming that the players at higher limits are all just as dumb as those at lower limits. Some are, and some aren't. If you're paying attention, you'll figure out who is who. As you move up, learning when to phase out certain strategies and phase in others according to the game is all part of the process.

[car ramrod]

They are definately not a waste of time (well maybe .1/.2). I started out at .05/.10 and stayed there until I won enough to get a bankroll fro .10/.20, then .25/.50, etc... I now play .50/1 and 1/2 and I feel I learned a lot playing these limits. First you learn to deal with suckouts, thats part of the game, especially at these low limits. Your right if you can't beat the low limits your not beating the higher limits. I hear people say they want to move up where people will 'respect my raises', thats crap, hell even at 1/2 most idiots don't respect my raises.
The best thing about the nano limits is you can learn a lot and it doesn't cost you much at all. I also learned to mutitable at the lower limits, which I think is a very good skill to have.

So I would say that the nano limits are not a waste of time, unless ofcourse you got more money than you know what to do with, then by all means start out higher.