Steps

[gasgod]

The thread on the new steps really opened my eyes. You really don't need to enter the step tourneys, though. You can construct a sort of step tourney for yourself. Here's how:

Play in a 10/1. If you place OOTM, you are finished. If not, you take your winnings and play in the highest buy-in that your winnings will buy. Whatever you don't spend goes towards the next buy-in.

Continue this process until one of two outcomes:

Your winnings are not enough for any buy-in, and you are finished. Thank you for playing.

Your winnings are enough to buy into a 200/9. If you place ITM, add the prize money to your accumulated winnings. Congratulations! Put everything into your bankroll, and you can now start over from scratch at 10/1.

If you place OOTM, take whatever you have left and buy in at a lower level.

Does this sound like a smart way to manage your BR? For a player of my skill level, this would be a virtual lock to fritter away my $11 buy-in, perhaps gaining a lot of useless experience playing at buy-ins where I don't belong, but always coming out a loser.

Yikes.

GG

[Apathy]

Just so you know, this is a terrible idea, but still a better idea then playing STEPS.

Your building up money at levels you may be a winner at then gambling the most amount of money against the most difficult player. But is you don't care just let me know when you get to the 200 step /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

[Voltron87]

IMO the 2 table STEPS can give a good player a large amount of overlay if they start low, making them profitable.

[microbet]

Would you really assume he is worse than the average $200 player?

[gumpzilla]

No, this isn't really a good thing. I had an argument with eastbay about a scheme very similar to this a month ago. He rightfully points out that as you ascend in levels, you're going to cross some threshold where you are no longer a winning player. For this reason, this is inferior to a scheme where you play and maintain a bankroll at a level that you can win at, because you're losing money on some of your entries.

Furthermore, you seem to be talking about a scheme here where you continue taking shots at the highest level you can for as long as you can afford it - the previous scheme laid out plans for taking one shot at a higher level and then dropping back down (barring a win), only it was somewhat more complicated than that. Schemes where you pop up and take an occasional one-time shot at higher games fueled by lower-level winnings shouldn't lead to obliteration of your bankroll, but you're foregoing profit by doing so, so it's still not good. (The long term health of your bankroll could also be called into question as a result of this method if you always knock yourself back down to even whenever you get up, since you don't have any kind of symmetric way to pump yourself back up to even should you bust.)

Your plan, however, seems like a good way to completely crush your bankroll. Stick to games you know you can beat, and move up one level at a time when you're adequately rolled.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
Your plan, however, seems like a good way to completely crush your bankroll. Stick to games you know you can beat, and move up one level at a time when you're adequately rolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. Steps make sense only to the top tier of players that play in them. If you have to start at the lowest buy-in, you probably have no business playing in them. OTOH, if you belong to the top tier, this is a fabulous way to filter dead money up to you.

GG

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you really assume he is worse than the average $200 player?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I've never seen him play, but I would say if he couldn't beat the 50s he would be worse then the avg player.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you really assume he is worse than the average $200 player?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, I've never seen him play, but I would say if he couldn't beat the 50s he would be worse then the avg player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you guys are talking about me, I admit that I couldn't beat the rake at the 55s, and maybe just barely at the 22s. (Just guessing, BTW)

GG

[microbet]

Well, I guess you at least need some more confidence.