Thoughts on seeking your own level

[dfscott]

I'll caveat this entire post with the fact that this is all idle speculation and not based on any hard data (nor a significant amount of personal experience), so I welcome any feedback and/or opposing views...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that as long as you have X buy-ins (pick a value for X, but 50 seems to be pretty common), that it's worth moving up to the next level. Of course, you can always take a shot a bit earlier, but I'm taking about your "home" level here.

But the question remains of determining what is the best place (for a given individual) to play. Specifically, does it make sense to pound away at a higher level, just barely breaking even, or should one move down when success doesn't come over a reasonable period (say Y tournaments -- feel free to suggest a value for Y). Staying at a higher level has the benefits of learning to play against tougher competition, although sometimes the lesson gets lost if you can't understand why your opponents are beating you. There's also the human element that it's much more frustrating to play when you're barely breaking even.

Moving back down when you don't have success at a higher level has the advantage of more satisfying play, but it seems that you also might be sacrificing the learning experience of playing against tougher competition (yes, I know that this contradicts what I said in the previous paragraph, but it's because I'm not really sure the value of the learning, so I'm flip-flopping on the issue). You may be able to win, despite serious flaws in your game, and for most people, it requires much more discipline to self-examine when you're winning. There's also the trick of trying to determine when to take another shot. Say you rebuild, move up again, and run hot at the new level -- are you really ready?

I think the root of this issue is that it's really hard to know what level you have the ability to beat until you play a significant amount of games, and most people aren't willing (or emotionally able) to play that many games at a level where they start off breaking even (or losing). The cycle then becomes:

1) Get BR for new level
2) Start playing new level
3) If you run hot -- stay at new level. Goto #5
4) If you run cold -- get frustrated (or BR-damaged) and move back down. Goto #1
5) Restart cycle at higher level

Looking at it this way, someone who has the skills to only beat the 11s (but no higher) could run hot, move up to the 22s, run hot some more, move the 33s, and then run cold (or average) and suddenly find themselves back at the 11s (and probably broke and/or shell-shocked to boot). By the same token, someone with the skills to beat the 100s could get mired at a lower level because they ran so cold that they were forced to move down due to BR (or more likely, emotional distress).

I think the reason for this is because most people aren't willing to stick it out at a level for those Y number of tournaments required to get a "true" picture of your ability. As a result, except of the truly long-term players, most people are playing the level that they're currently playing more due to accidents of positive and negative variation.

[Scuba Chuck]

Are you posting a question, or just some thoughts?

My own analysis of your thoughts are this:

Those are the risks folks.

[Sidekick]

Most people recommend at least 30 buy ins for a comfortable BR, but I'm in the at least 50 buy in club myself.

However... and this is the biggie for me. You play at the level that you are cofortable with. I have the BR to be playing at the $50s, but I don't because I'm not comfortable at that level.

I still play at the $20s because I am just now getting to the point where I'm nearly indifferent to how things turn out and just examine how well I played or didn't play in the tournament.

To me it's a trap for people to move up every time they can simply because they have accumulated the BR to move up to the next level. A great many people think their skills are greater than they are due to running well over a moderate period of time. Hot and cold streaks or even just above average runs (to me these are the most dangerous for people) often lead people to believe that they are ready to move up, when in fact they aren't.

I am always trying to examine my game and improve it, even when I enter a smaller limit tournament I am always looking at how I play and trying to ignore the results. Over time if I play well I will win money.

Find your comfort zone and play at that level. IMO you move up when you have beaten a certain level over an extended period of time and know that you are outplaying your opponents at your current level. If you are just playing as well as your opponents at your current level, but are winning, then it is a mistake to move up IMO.

These are of course just my own thoughts on the matter.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people recommend at least 30 buy ins for a comfortable BR, but I'm in the at least 50 buy in club myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

now, dont get me wrong, i take shots ALL the time, especially when there seems to be little hope of me winning. however, at the level i play COMFORTABLY, i like to have 100x the buyin. this lets you have a little bit of breathing room if you manage to go on an absolutely terrible run. at everything over the 55s, i think you will find even 50 or 60 a bit tight for movement. holla

[gumpzilla]

It's an interesting question you pose.

I think the key is that it's important to honestly assess when you move up and start breaking even or losing money over your first 50 or so SNGs whether you really think you're running badly or are just being outclassed by the new level of competition. Are you getting your money in in good spots? Are you putting your opponents on reasonably accurate hand ranges?

[Sidekick]

I actually have a 150 buy in BR and use 100 buy ins minimum for myself. But when people ask, I recommend at least 50 rather than the 30 that I typically see.

Bad runs can happen to anyone no matter how good they are. I require at least a 100 buy in BR for me to be comfortable, but most people seem to be able to get by on less.

[pbrmeasap]

This is just me so take it for what you will...

I play WAY within my bankroll. I view stt as recreation. My friends needle me about moving up but why? Over the past two years I've cashout for a nice vacation with my wife...Vail is awsome. Along with many weekend golf trips.

I play the 11's. I know, I know that I may be very stupid or nieve about the skill required for higher buy-ins but I'm very comfortable at my current stakes.

My on-line bankroll is my bankroll. I never want to reload. This has has worked for me for the past 19 months. Don't get me wrong I've set goals for myself such as "When I reach x buy-ins for the 22's I'll move." When I reach x it never fails that I continue playing where I feel comfortable...I'm a pussy. But, I take pride looking at my cashier page knowing that I won't go broke and I still put some in my pocket.

I set goals to move but I'll probably always be stuck in the 11's. My slippers are comfy. Call me risk adverse aka pussy.

pbr

[FieryJustice]

I totally agree with the 100 buyin idea for the higher levels. The swings are really crazy. As for what level to play, I guess I would say to play at a level that you are obviously bankrolled for, but also a level where it hurts a little, but not too much, to lose the money. I know that if I decided to move from playing $215's to 55s or even 109s, I care much less about the money. I am then playing simply to play. Maybe it is just me, but I guess I get some gratification from making money and not simply winning. Also, if I was to move up, say to the step 5's, i'm sure right now the money would matter a lot to me and I would almost play with scared money. I am not sure, because I have not tried it, but I think that might be what would happen. Also, you obviously have to be skilled enough to play at any level and I am starting to think that the skill level required to beat the games are about the same once you reach a certain level, namely the $109s. I think if you can beat them, you can also beat the 215's and 1065s as long as you play soundly. The only difference is the number of solid players at the table. I could be wrong though, considering i have been told I will be broke witin a year.

Jcardshark

[Sidekick]

Not that it matters to you or anyone else, but... I think you have the correct attitude. Playing at the level you are comfortable and happy with is not being a wimp, but part of playing smart poker.

Most folks tend to play better poker when they aren't stressing over the level at which they play.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you posting a question, or just some thoughts?

My own analysis of your thoughts are this:

Those are the risks folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's mainly just some conclusions I've drawn and I'm wondering if anyone agrees, disagrees, or feels that it's irrelavant.

[dfscott]

I think it's interesting that the majority of the responses to this post have focused on the BR issue. While they provide guidelines, I don't think my post made it clear what I was getting really getting at. I wanted to try to rephrase with an analogy, but it's difficult because it's hard to find another endeavor that has such an element of luck involved.

My point is that BR is the insurance that you don't have the "right stuff." Most people consider it as insurance against running badly, but I think it's also insurance against unknowingly (or knowingly) being in a game that's beyond your skills.

So I'm really going beyond the question of "how much BR is enough." It's really more of a "how do you know if you're good enough." I think the answer is unknowable for most people -- experts can probably tell when they're in over their heads, but as Al says in PoP, gambling is based on denial, and I think most 2+2'ers, while defintely being more aware of this, are just as susecptable as anyone.

[Blarg]

Sounds like your recent dry run is giving you doubts. That's a healthy thing, because whether you deserve to be doubtful of your game or not, examining your game and being determined to find your weakenesses is a good thing. Even if you are staying at the same level, old weaknesses can rear their ugly heads sometimes, so constant vigilance and examination are always wise.

I do think that very few players really understand how long the long term is, and that that phenomenon is even worse with SNG's, because you get so few identical situations per SNG. Out of a hundred SNG's, you might get heads up only 30 times or less, and that's when you're on a heater. The least variation in luck or more or less skillful play can make a huge difference in your profitability ITM or on the bubble.

So while I don't know that most people don't have the patience to play a lot of SNG's before moving up, as you assert, I suspect that might be the case. And I suspect that because of that, as you assert, most people are making judgments on their play substantially influenced if not totally controlled by short term variation.

I'll use myself for an example. I started playing last month, and now have about 600 games played at the 10+1's on Party. In that time, the figures for those 600 games reflect going from totally clueless beginner to slghtly less clueless to actually not too bad when ITM, and from horrible on the bubble to, well, definitely much less horrible. From big loser, to a big enough winner to earn it all back and becoming a moderate winner overall, to a lousy two week negative streak to recovery back a moderate winner who's still hurting a bit from having an unproductive two weeks.

There's virtually no point in my 600 games that I feel is very reflective of my real game --- absolute beginner who is terrible, then great, then small loser, then small winner -- and even the total together is a pretty rough mess it wouldn't be realistic to draw many conclusions from. As far as really saying what kind of player I am likely to be on a sustainable basis is, this 600 is practically a write off.

And that's 600 games at one level! Almost meaningless. And because it started with my being an absolute beginner, that will influence what kind of average numbers I'll get when I mix in my next 600 or so. And really, any particularly outstanding hot or cold streaks will just further muddy the waters.

It seems clear to me how long term the long term in poker really is. If I were to decide to move up based solidly on my numbers, it would take quite a while to decide I even had solid numbers - even a couple thousand would be just a shot at a more stable idea of where I really stand, but not all that accurate.

I think most people probably decide to move up based on either misinterpreting the significance of their numbers, based on feeling that they're good enough to move up just because of their understanding of the game and level, a combination of the two, or based on their just having enough bankroll to play at a level more exciting for them whether they have the skill or not.

The number of people who really stay at lower levels long enough to accumulate numbers that reliably back up their decision to move or stay is probably pretty small. The number of players who aren't outright big losers whose numbers tell them anything definitive about what levels they should be playing at might be pretty small.

[dfscott]

Blarg, you're solidly on-point here. I definitely am become reflective based on my own results of late, which while I feel are greatly due to variance, are still dismal.

You also helped me zero in on another point that maybe you were making already. There are (at least) two ways to move up:

1) Play enough games to be confident that you're a winner at your level. Then, when you move up, you can view your results in that light. If you double your win rate, you can be pretty sure that it's variance, and if you drop a ton, you can be somewhat certain that it's probably due to variance since you don't expect massive changes between levels.

2) Move up whenever you get the BR, and be prepared for the smackdown, since you never know how much your rising BR is due to positive variance.

FWIW, I tend to use option 2, since I'm a firm believer in the idea that time is money. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just me so take it for what you will...

I play WAY within my bankroll. I view stt as recreation. My friends needle me about moving up but why? Over the past two years I've cashout for a nice vacation with my wife...Vail is awsome. Along with many weekend golf trips.

I play the 11's. I know, I know that I may be very stupid or nieve about the skill required for higher buy-ins but I'm very comfortable at my current stakes.

My on-line bankroll is my bankroll. I never want to reload. This has has worked for me for the past 19 months. Don't get me wrong I've set goals for myself such as "When I reach x buy-ins for the 22's I'll move." When I reach x it never fails that I continue playing where I feel comfortable...I'm a pussy. But, I take pride looking at my cashier page knowing that I won't go broke and I still put some in my pocket.

I set goals to move but I'll probably always be stuck in the 11's. My slippers are comfy. Call me risk adverse aka pussy.

pbr

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people invest their money in CDs when they could get 3x the expected return in the stock market because they're extreemly risk adverse. I don't think sticking at the 10s is any different from this, nor anything to be ashamed of.

on a different note, sometimes it gets hard to assess whether you are beating a level or not by the terrible plays that you see at every table. Even the $200s have their fair share of fish that somehow stumble into them. Its easy to move up limits and think "wow, he just called an all in on level 1 with A9, I can easily beat these guys" without realizing that being better than the obviously worse person at the table is not nearly enough to beat the rest of hte players and the rake. I know this from personal experience because I have tendency to measure myself against the worst players at the table, something that I'm trying to fix.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Blarg, you're solidly on-point here. I definitely am become reflective based on my own results of late, which while I feel are greatly due to variance, are still dismal.

You also helped me zero in on another point that maybe you were making already. There are (at least) two ways to move up:

1) Play enough games to be confident that you're a winner at your level. Then, when you move up, you can view your results in that light. If you double your win rate, you can be pretty sure that it's variance, and if you drop a ton, you can be somewhat certain that it's probably due to variance since you don't expect massive changes between levels.

2) Move up whenever you get the BR, and be prepared for the smackdown, since you never know how much your rising BR is due to positive variance.

FWIW, I tend to use option 2, since I'm a firm believer in the idea that time is money. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a third way to move up, too, and it can probably do a lot to confirm your real ability and fitness for the next level.

That's by adding more tables. For instance, I play 4 tables now. As someone who used to 8-table limit games, it's not much of a strain for me at all. But 8-tabling SNG's is a huge strain. I'm not good enough and quick enough in my decisions to do it comfortably.

If I feel it's time to give myself a greater challenge or make more money, I can do so without changing levels by trying to play 6 or 8 tables(I've tried 6, and don't like it much, but it's doable). I do feel that if I can't do 8 tables for a reasonable ROI at the 11's where I am now, I'm probably not ready to 4- table the 22's. If I can move up to 8-tables with good success over a good period of time, I'm probably going to find four tables of 22 pretty manageable(especially since I usually start a new level on only two tables, or by mixing one or two in with my regular tables).

Doing that successfully will increase my dollars per hour and probably risk less than jumping up a level. That's combining positive with positive for a big win. Playing more games, unless you're quite a bit worse at it than playing fewer, tends to decrease variance, too, which is good for the bankroll overall.

My eventual poker dream is to do things raptor-style -- at least 8 tables at once and at much higher levels. I could see being very happy playing a lot of 50's instead of a few 100's or 215's. So getting 8-tabling SNG's down is a goal just as real as increasing my ROI or moving up. I think I'd put those goals in order of: 1) increasing ROI, 2) learning to play 8 tables without a big ROI drop, and 3) moving up limits.

I think learning to multitable more tables at a particular level can do just as much for both your income and overall poker progress sometimes, but probably not always. Multitabling can also stunt your growth if you let it. But a lot of that really depends on how much effort you put into analyzing your game. For me, at present, either moving up stakes or learning to play more tables would facilitate my growth, and multi-tabling would probably do it cheaper.

All that said, I'll probably do a mix of the two.

[the shadow]

What's your goal?

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Perfection -- be the best you can à la Bozeman?

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Profession -- make a living à la Dali?

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Recreation -- have some fun and hopefully make some bucks à la Scuba?

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Action -- get some action, hopefully make even more bucks, and try not to lose it all at pai gow à la raptor?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Recreation -- have some fun and hopefully make some bucks à la Scuba?

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression from many of Scuba's posts is that he's not really in it solely for recreation....

I'd rather nominate Phil Van Sexton for this /images/graemlins/spade.gif. I think of his poker playing in exactly this sense.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Also, I'm not sure I'd put Dali as the best 'professional' example as he admitedly doesn't rely on poker as his family's sole source of income (at least last time the matter came up). I'd put Lorinda or Lacky in this spot (who also is a perfectionist a la Bozeman) - they are consummate pros who seem to check a bit of the Dali-gamble at the door.

So, how about:
/images/graemlins/spade.gif Bozeman the perfectionist
/images/graemlins/heart.gif Lacky the professional
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Phil the recreationalist
/images/graemlins/club.gif Raptor the completely insane actionist

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yugoslav

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Lacky the professional

[/ QUOTE ]
this is dead on. lacky would 12 table the 1-2 limit cash games if he thought he could make more money than in 15-30. which i guess makes sense and all.. but u wont ever see him playing the 100-200 on stars to 'take a shot'. he is very, very smart about his poker, and it works out quite well for him.

[ QUOTE ]
Raptor the completely insane actionist

[/ QUOTE ]
SHIP IT MMMMMMBATCHES. ok, foreal though, i dont have a problem. i just NEED to gambool. its not an issue, i dont need to call GA, set up a session, talk about me destroying my life, blah blah. i just wanna roll the dice. ok? i just wanna WIN by putting myself in situations that are clearly not +ev. whats so bad about that? at least i understand the math behind why i cant ever make money in games other than poker.. holla

[lacky]

nice complaments, but the timing is funny. I'm droping like a rock in everything this month.

I'm down $1150 in sng's, $1800 in 5/10-10/20 limit. I'd play anything at this point if I knew I was gonna win. The worst part about downturns is they can go on for so long you start to wonder what your doing wrong no matter how long you've been doing it. Fortunatly with rackback from last month and a belated pokernow febuary payment I'm just about even for the month. Usually things turn around and I end up having an average or so month. So, I'm still an optimist, as anyone doing this for a living has to be.

On a more positive note, my wife had our baby last week. She only likes to sleep on my chest at night, so we play alot of poker together. Doesn't affect the play any, but typing is hell.

As far as finding a level goes, once your game is solid it's really just a matter of how much losing you want to put up with. If you can beat the $109's, you can beat everything below it as well. Each step down you make a little less, but you have less lossing days also. Sometimes (like now!) I wonder if I wouldn't be happier just 12 tabling .5/1 or $11's. You could still make ok money and you could count the losing days in a month on one hand. Sounds nice! Unfortunately playing those games with a $10k plus bankroll just seems rediculous.

The more I type, the more I realize I'm tired and rambling.

Steve

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't affect the play any, but typing is hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

we all see that lacky.. you need to go back to 4th grade. (yes yes, i see the jokes coming now about me being there like 4 years ago, so shove it). don worry lack, if anyone knows about variance its you and me. keep grindin out that rent money an ill keep taking shots. eventually ill have money. youll see. holla

[DonButtons]

[ QUOTE ]


As far as finding a level goes, once your game is solid it's really just a matter of how much losing you want to put up with. If you can beat the $109's, you can beat everything below it as well. Each step down you make a little less, but you have less lossing days also. Sometimes (like now!) I wonder if I wouldn't be happier just 12 tabling .5/1 or $11's. You could still make ok money and you could count the losing days in a month on one hand. Sounds nice! Unfortunately playing those games with a $10k plus bankroll just seems rediculous.
Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

most people want to be playing the game they can make the most $ per hour...11s vs 109s is a big difference, 109s vs 1065s, again huge difference...

[lacky]

true up to a point, but my point was the extra $/hour comes at a definate price. Say a player can 4 table $55's for 15% ROI. Thats about $33 per set. If that same player can beat the $11's for 40%, thats $17.6 per set, and the sets are shorter. So, going up 5x in limit, you go up about 1.6x in $/hour and have much more losing days to work through.

Steve

[Voltron87]

I haven't read this thread, but one piece of sort of relevant advice is: You have to be tough as nails to win at poker. You have to be able to stick it out through everything, just visualize that it is always an uphill climb, because it will be that most of the time, always be determined and always focus on playing the next set to the best of your ability, never leak and never assume you will win, or coast.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
true up to a point, but my point was the extra $/hour comes at a definate price. Say a player can 4 table $55's for 15% ROI. Thats about $33 per set. If that same player can beat the $11's for 40%, thats $17.6 per set, and the sets are shorter. So, going up 5x in limit, you go up about 1.6x in $/hour and have much more losing days to work through.

[/ QUOTE ]

have some balls lacky. yes, of course you will have lower variance and way fewer losing days playing a lower limit, and yes, you will make less. yes, you will have greater piece of mind. NO you wont make as much. DING DING DING. ill play anything that i can make the most at. period. doesnt really matter to me. if it was 20 tabling the 10+1s, i would do that. (probably pretty tough, but id give it a shot).

for every player, they will have a bell curve type of graph if they were to chart the amount of money they could make per hour at each level. one of the keys to professional poker is to find the peak of your mountain.

holla

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]


2) Move up whenever you get the BR, and be prepared for the smackdown, since you never know how much your rising BR is due to positive variance.

FWIW, I tend to use option 2, since I'm a firm believer in the idea that time is money. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Response to your FWIW at bottom

Scott, you and I have been playing similar levels for some time now. I played some number of $20s, not really sure haven’t looked at my PT database, but it does not really matter. I moved up as my confidence from beating the play at the $20s. The confidence fore mostly and bankroll secondly allowed me to make the leap to the $30s. My feeling was always, I can move down if need be, we are still playing with 800 chips …

From my challenge, which I got cocky with, thinking I could eight table the $30s having hardly played a significant set beat up me like a red headed set child. Well I dropped 30 buyins VERY quickly after having a nice 10 buyin upswing. That’s alright; I blew all the money in my Empire account and was forced to four table. You would think I’d learn. Hell no! I ended up enjoying variance up after having dropped 30 in a brief run to return my roll to 30+. Naturally, “Maulik, you’re awesome,” back to eight tabling. I blew $500 or so eight tabling, back to square one 4 tabling.

This led in my results after ~300 tournaments to be breakeven. This led me to believe I was making numerous mistakes and I took a one day break in my challenge and looked over many HHs. I posted a ton for a few nights and that brought my confidence back up to speed. This allowed me to the security of playing the $33s while not moving back down. (I was sure I’m a winner at the $20s). That’s what the bankroll is for. In retrospect eight tabling is stupid for me … it slows down the learning curve. Additionally, eight tabling did not allow me to assess each situation and reflect upon my options. Four tabling allowed me to post specific hands while I was tabling, which was nice, immediate feedback throughout eight hour sets.

For starting a new level, which will be the $50+5… I do not want to move back down to the $30+3, so I’ll move up when I have a very high confidence level in the $30s. Why? It’s a different game, I do not want to go back and forth between managing 800 and 1000 chips. If I run hot, fantastic, it will make my initial run that much easier. If I run terribly, my bankroll will allow me to not worry about it and keep playing.

p.s. I’m not sure if any of this helped, it seems more so to be a story rather than anything else.

Re: FWIW – time is money, but I’d rather become a better player while breaking even at a higher level than just ‘grind it’ for a few bucks. Eventually, I’ll want more so why not go up.

[lacky]

yeah, well, how meny $11's have you seen me play? I spend most of my time split evenly between the highest level I know I can beat and the next higher level, hoping I can beat it for more. It's the correct way to grow as a player and continue to move up, but sometimes I think staying at a level/game that you have a solid long term record at for 6 months would be a nice break from the stress. If I had played only $55's, 5/10 limit, and mid buy-in MTT's this year I would be way ahead of the $30k I'm at for the year. So far $109's, $215's, and 15/30 have been a waste of time earnings wise. The fact that the higher games are a struggle probably means there are still holes in my play (nothing new there)

Steve

[raptor517]

if it werent for pai gow/step 5s i would be way ahead of where im at for the year. holla

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
if it werent for pai gow/step 5s i would be way ahead of where im at for the year. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

when are we going to see a raptor make a "pai gow is rigged" post?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
when are we going to see a raptor make a "pai gow is rigged" post?

[/ QUOTE ]

already have made a few of them /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[Degen]

push

Andre

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't affect the play any, but typing is hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

we all see that lacky.. you need to go back to 4th grade. (yes yes, i see the jokes coming now about me being there like 4 years ago, so shove it). don worry lack, if anyone knows about variance its you and me. keep grindin out that rent money an ill keep taking shots. eventually ill have money. youll see. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds very much like a friendlier version of a conversation between Worm and Knish.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
true up to a point, but my point was the extra $/hour comes at a definate price. Say a player can 4 table $55's for 15% ROI. Thats about $33 per set. If that same player can beat the $11's for 40%, thats $17.6 per set, and the sets are shorter. So, going up 5x in limit, you go up about 1.6x in $/hour and have much more losing days to work through.

[/ QUOTE ]

have some balls lacky. yes, of course you will have lower variance and way fewer losing days playing a lower limit, and yes, you will make less. yes, you will have greater piece of mind. NO you wont make as much. DING DING DING. ill play anything that i can make the most at. period. doesnt really matter to me. if it was 20 tabling the 10+1s, i would do that. (probably pretty tough, but id give it a shot).

for every player, they will have a bell curve type of graph if they were to chart the amount of money they could make per hour at each level. one of the keys to professional poker is to find the peak of your mountain.

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember Knish's hugely underrated line: "My kids eat."

Lacky has multiple kids to support, and no other bankroll to support them with if he runs into some fiercely bad luck inside or outside poker.

It's an entirely different set of needs he brings to poker than many people have; definitely entirely different than yours. Your responsibilites in life are almost non-existent; his are by comparison almost infinite.

So it's not strictly at all about the ideal dollars per hour you earn, finding it, and exploiting it. That's just one part of a complicated puzzle that has different solutions for every player.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember Knish's hugely underrated line: "My kids eat."

Lacky has multiple kids to support, and no other bankroll to support them with if he runs into some fiercely bad luck inside or outside poker.

It's an entirely different set of needs he brings to poker than many people have; definitely entirely different than yours. Your responsibilites in life are almost non-existent; his are by comparison almost infinite.

So it's not strictly at all about the ideal dollars per hour you earn, finding it, and exploiting it. That's just one part of a complicated puzzle that has different solutions for every player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you might believe that i am being mean to the ol dinosaur. me an lacky converse on a daily basis about poker and life, etc. im just making jokes cuz im a joker. hah. hah. joke. funny. i know he has a full family to support, as well as a newborn baby girlie to watch over. he is, and should be, an inspirational figure to us degenerate gamblers. a poker player with self control, who plays within his bankroll, and in doing so, achieves victory. HAIL LACKY. holla

[Blarg]

Yeah, I know you guys are friends. He and I talk too. Just pointing out that he's not so much lacking balls as just adapting to his situation, cuz he's got a lot farther to fall than you do if he falls.

I admire his tenacity and ability and helpfulness, too. There are plenty of guys on 2+2 who make way more money than he does who I don't admire or root for nearly as much.