Moving-Up Question

[Dan Mezick]

Let's say you are beating 15-30 full ring and are looking to move up to 30-60 full ring online. You have the bankroll.

Is it a waste of time to play 15-30 6-max as an intermediate step to test your skills against more aggression before moving up ?

Or is it a good idea?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are beating 15-30 full ring and are looking to move up to 30-60 full ring online. You have the bankroll.

Is it a waste of time to play 15-30 6-max as an intermediate step to test your skills against more aggression before moving up ?

Or is it a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I haven't really played the 15/30 much at all since the 30/60 game was expanded, but for the time being at least, the "new" 30/60 is playing more or less the same as the 15/30 used to. There are some differences in game texture IMO but they're fairly subtle.

I would be conservative about bankroll though. The swings in the "new" 30/60 are severe, especially if you're playing much shorthanded. Probably $25K or so would be appropriate.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are beating 15-30 full ring and are looking to move up to 30-60 full ring online. You have the bankroll.

Is it a waste of time to play 15-30 6-max as an intermediate step to test your skills against more aggression before moving up ?

Or is it a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I haven't really played the 15/30 much at all since the 30/60 game was expanded, but for the time being at least, the "new" 30/60 is playing more or less the same as the 15/30 used to. There are some differences in game texture IMO but they're fairly subtle.

I would be conservative about bankroll though. The swings in the "new" 30/60 are severe, especially if you're playing much shorthanded. Probably $25K or so would be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was about to recomend a br of more than 500bbs.

im glad im working with one...wouldn't feel necessarily good if i had just 30k...in very short periods of time you can be up or down 150bbs-250bbs even as a substantially winning player...but in all likelihood 30k is ok...as is 25...just be prepped to move back down

-Barron

[Boris]

$25k bankroll to take a shot at 30-60? That is insanely huge. If the game sucks that bad why even bother? I know one very good B&M pro who thinks $25k is good working bankroll for $80-$160. Please note that I'm not saying $25k is an adequate total bankroll for an $80-160 pro. It's what you should have for cash on hand or "maybe its time re-evaluate if I lose this much" purposes.

I would commit $8k to the 30-60 and only play one table until you have increased your roll.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
$25k bankroll to take a shot at 30-60? That is insanely huge. If the game sucks that bad why even bother? I know one very good B&M pro who thinks $25k is good working bankroll for $80-$160. Please note that I'm not saying $25k is an adequate total bankroll for an $80-160 pro. It's what you should have for cash on hand or "maybe its time re-evaluate if I lose this much" purposes.

I would commit $8k to the 30-60 and only play one table until you have increased your roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

taking a shot is different than playing a limit consistently and totally.

-Barron

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are beating 15-30 full ring and are looking to move up to 30-60 full ring online. You have the bankroll.

Is it a waste of time to play 15-30 6-max as an intermediate step to test your skills against more aggression before moving up ?

Or is it a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I haven't really played the 15/30 much at all since the 30/60 game was expanded, but for the time being at least, the "new" 30/60 is playing more or less the same as the 15/30 used to. There are some differences in game texture IMO but they're fairly subtle.

I would be conservative about bankroll though. The swings in the "new" 30/60 are severe, especially if you're playing much shorthanded. Probably $25K or so would be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

i was about to recomend a br of more than 500bbs.

im glad im working with one...wouldn't feel necessarily good if i had just 30k...in very short periods of time you can be up or down 150bbs-250bbs even as a substantially winning player...but in all likelihood 30k is ok...as is 25...just be prepped to move back down

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends a lot too on how much shorthanded you're playing. The "new" 30/60 seems to run short somewhat more often than the "old" 15/30 (and obviously more often than the "old" 30/60) so it's easy to play more shorthanded without even realizing it. Or in my case, with realizing it.

All I know is that the past couple of weeks have been the swingiest time basically ever in my poker career.

[DcifrThs]

mine too so i like having a large roll

-Barron

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be conservative about bankroll though. The swings in the "new" 30/60 are severe, especially if you're playing much shorthanded. Probably $25K or so would be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit. I knew I shouldn't have bought that new truck last week.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be conservative about bankroll though. The swings in the "new" 30/60 are severe, especially if you're playing much shorthanded. Probably $25K or so would be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit. I knew I shouldn't have bought that new truck last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just be sure to keep the receipt.

[aba20]

What does everyone thing a good amount to take a shot at 15/30 and 30/60 is?

[Boris]

commit 50 big bets for taking a shot. Then only take a shot when you know the game is very good. Absolute best game for taking a shot is 4-5 players seeing the flop for one bet. Probably tough to find on the Internet but its possible in real life.

[Klepton]

best time to take a shot

commit 25 or 50 bb stop loss

friday or saturday nights from 9-12 are very good, lots of drunks

[J.A.Sucker]

More often than not, if you lose 25K playing 80/160, then you should not play that game. However, this is more than adequate for the vast majority of bad luck that one might encounter in the 80 game. This is often how much working capital that I have for these games, and if I go through it, then it's time to reevaluate things, and the best place to do that is by dropping down a notch.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not, if you lose 25K playing 80/160, then you should not play that game. However, this is more than adequate for the vast majority of bad luck that one might encounter in the 80 game. This is often how much working capital that I have for these games, and if I go through it, then it's time to reevaluate things, and the best place to do that is by dropping down a notch.

[/ QUOTE ]

this may be true...and i'll take your word for it...

but my experience has been at online games playing multiple tables...and the guys im friends with and talk to play those same games...and we see some insane swings that make me want to have much more than a few hundred bbs.

i have a full 30k in party just to play the 30 game...granted thats probably overkill but i like safe over sorry.

-Barron

[Schneids]

Primarly live players must not understand how swingy online play can be.

If I were someone trying to move up and taking a shot I would want $12,000 for a $3000 30/60 shot. Or $25,000 for a $8000 30/60 shot. If I'm playing 30/60 every day online I would want at least $40,000. If I'm playing 50/100 every day online I'd want at least $75,000.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Primarly live players must not understand how swingy online play can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes me, and I would be very interested to hear from you guys why you think this is. I know that you play many more hands per session than live players do, but are there other reasons why online poker is so much more volatile?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Primarly live players must not understand how swingy online play can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes me, and I would be very interested to hear from you guys why you think this is. I know that you play many more hands per session than live players do, but are there other reasons why online poker is so much more volatile?

[/ QUOTE ]

groupthink live probably reduces overall aggression.

-Barron

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Primarly live players must not understand how swingy online play can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes me, and I would be very interested to hear from you guys why you think this is. I know that you play many more hands per session than live players do, but are there other reasons why online poker is so much more volatile?

[/ QUOTE ]

groupthink live probably reduces overall aggression.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]
That might be part of it. From what I've seen the level of aggression makes online poker seem like some demented video game that's played for money. Please feel free to educate me on this.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Primarly live players must not understand how swingy online play can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes me, and I would be very interested to hear from you guys why you think this is. I know that you play many more hands per session than live players do, but are there other reasons why online poker is so much more volatile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sitting behind our computers in a sea of anonymity we all try more crazy aggressive moves more often since we can't have someone looking us in our eyes as we act foolish. And we're playing more tables so our reads aren't as good and since we aren't playing live we more often have to buckle down and make more high variance call downs. Plus online is rigged for action. Plus we don't have any visual tells to go off that live players can sometimes use for laydowns or getting in check raises that they otherwise wouldn't have w/o the visuals.

Plus, and I think most importantly, which this might be a shocker to some people, but online games are tougher. I'm pretty sure the games I play in almost every day online between the 40/80 to 100/200 level are almost always significantly tougher than the 60/120 and 100/200 games I played in last week at the commerce.

Edit: kidding on the rigged part, forgot I was talking to a B&M player who may not know it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus online is rigged for action.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "rigged for action"?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus online is rigged for action.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean "rigged for action"?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my edit. I guess I was too late on that. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it a waste of time to play 15-30 6-max as an intermediate step to test your skills against more aggression before moving up ?

Or is it a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Waste of time. 15/30 fulls were already aggressive enough you're probably ready for what's ahead.

[jetsonsdogcanfly]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I've seen the level of aggression makes online poker seem like some demented video game that's played for money. Please feel free to educate me on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are times online when i feel good about value raising my king kicker on a double paired board on the river.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]

Edit: kidding on the rigged part, forgot I was talking to a B&M player who may not know it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not, if you lose 25K playing 80/160, then you should not play that game. However, this is more than adequate for the vast majority of bad luck that one might encounter in the 80 game. This is often how much working capital that I have for these games, and if I go through it, then it's time to reevaluate things, and the best place to do that is by dropping down a notch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to say that I'm with J.A. on this one. I suspect a lot of the volatility comes from the playing style you guys have adapted and I don't think you gain EV from playing that style either. When I look at PP 15/30 (and lately) 30/60 discussions on this board the advice is always raise, raise, raise.

I grant you that multitablers need more bankroll to have enough buy ins and I will also accept that shorthanded play is unavoidably volatile at these limits. But I have never had more than an 80BB downswing at these limits and it has always involved tilting.

[J.A.Sucker]

I have been playing quite a bit of online poker lately, and much of that has been in the party 30 game. I play 4 tables at a time (can't handle more), and I have found the volatility to be quite low, really. Maybe I'm just a super nit, but the games are quite sane. I cannot say the same about the 1-2 games, which are quite tough and aggressive.

However, since poker is really my only way to make any money right now, I'm careful with bankroll ideas. However, I think that you should really have a very good idea if you are a big enough winner or not to play a certain game (instead of a slightly smaller game where your downside is less but earn might be similar) after something like 125-150BB or even possibly a little less.

Bigger losing skids should be QUITE RARE - if they aren't you aren't playing in a good enough game, and likely are not playing a good enough game, either.

[J.A.Sucker]

If you are playing games that are tougher than the 1-2 game at the Commerce, you're wasting your time. There are plenty of good games on the internet, and you can make a ton of money at them.

I do agree that there is more aggression at times, but not to the degree that some think. The aggression is just applied at strange times, IMO. Sometimes, it makes for tough decisions for me, mainly because I haven't seen many of the plays before, but after some time, I have adjusted for them pretty well.

[J.A.Sucker]

At least somebody agrees with me these days /images/graemlins/smirk.gif FWIW, my experiences are quite similar to yours, except in the biggest shorthanded games on the internet, where I think all kinds of things can happen.

[Barry]

Just to add my 2 cents worth. I just started playing in the "new" Party 30 game when I got back from Vegas. I couldn't deal with the wait before.

After just a few days, I don't think that it plays much different than the old 15. In fact the 30 games seem a little better than the 15 games, but you should excercise some table selection to find your buddies.

Regarding BR, I never kept much more than about 250BB in my account and I don't think that I'll do it any differently in the 30 game.

For full disclosure, I only play 3 tables at a time, and I guess that I'm a bit less aggro than some others, so that effects how much that I need.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think that you should really have a very good idea if you are a big enough winner or not to play a certain game (instead of a slightly smaller game where your downside is less but earn might be similar) after something like 125-150BB or even possibly a little less.

Bigger losing skids should be QUITE RARE - if they aren't you aren't playing in a good enough game, and likely are not playing a good enough game, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't think this true.

In my first two sessions since the 30/60 tables were opened up and expanded, I lost 200 BB.

In my next two sessions, I won 180 BB.

In the session after that, I lost ~110 BB.

Then I had a boring little session and won 20 BB.

I then played a marathon session on Monday night and won about 260 BB.

I've been beating online 15/30 and 30/60 by a wide margin for a long time and assuredly wasn't playing my very best during the nadir of the downswing but nevertheless the variance is very striking. IMO the 30/60 Party is pretty much a perfect storm of variance between the extemely aggressive play, the somewhat tough games, and the tendency to run shorthanded.