How bad were you crushing the 11's when you moved up to the 22s?

[DMACM]

How high was your ROI when you moved up and how many games?

Just curious when people decided to move up. Not considering it myself yet although I have been running lucky lately.

[infinite_loop]

There's really not enough difference between the two to be really concerned about. As long as your roll is sufficient, you should probably move up. Determining how much you need is a personal thing.

[GrekeHaus]

I had about a 170% ROI or something like that. Of course, I had only played 3.

[wiggs73]

32% through 200.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
I had about a 170% ROI or something like that. Of course, I had only played 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...i have 6 109s under my belt...2/1/0/2/0/1/0/0/0/0
I should go hit the 215s, yeah /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Heh. My shrinky balls stay put at the 55s/22s.

BL'...."gold medal in small samplesizes, 2005"

[Big Limpin']

Also, i am the proud owner of a -17& ROI at the $11s over 13 games. Oh my. /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

BL'

(so...im too good for the 109s, and not good enough for the $11s...mebbe i play 215s and 6s solely?)

[dmmikkel]

Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna go ahead and call this retarded. If you suck at poker, moving up is a bad idea, unless you're doing it purely for enjoyment.

I think you should move up when you've got the bankroll, and you feel like you've got a good shot at beating the new level.

[wiggs73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had about a 170% ROI or something like that. Of course, I had only played 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...i have 6 109s under my belt...2/1/0/2/0/1/0/0/0/0
I should go hit the 215s, yeah /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Heh. My shrinky balls stay put at the 55s/22s.

BL'...."gold medal in small samplesizes, 2005"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm here to rip your gold medal. I have 1 $109 and took second. So 179% ROI (I think) through 1.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto pergasu's call on this. Moeranic.

[gildwulf]

To answer OP, I was 25% over 500+ at 10s and then my ROI dropped considerably at 20s....like to 16-18% over 300+...I don't think I had a 12 OOTM until I went to 20s though...

I don't think your magnitude of +ROI matters though...if you feel like you are crushing the competition, you will know when you are ready to move up. For instance, if you go through a session of 100 SNGs and see that you made 1-2 donk mistakes but the rest of the times you were knocked out were bad beats, it's obviously time to move up regardless of your ROI. It doesn't matter if you've played 50 or 5000 of that level (which is why I would say ROI is less important than the overall makeup of players at that level compared to you).

Hope that helps.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with this? If you're good enough to be a winning player, you will move up as your bankroll increases and down whenever a bad run hits you, but you'll get to keep playing. If you're not a winning player, you'll bust anyway, so have fun with it.

I moved up to the 22's at:
300 games
23% ROI
actual bankroll of about $300 and no fear of ruin since I could redeposit

SlimP

[bkbluedevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this advice. I don't know why several posters think it is retarded. There isn't really that much difference between the levels so if you can beat one there is good chance you can beat the next. If nothing else it would be good practice. You are costing yourself a good amount of money if you would be able to beat the next level and don't move up.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with this? If you're good enough to be a winning player, you will move up as your bankroll increases and down whenever a bad run hits you, but you'll get to keep playing. If you're not a winning player, you'll bust anyway, so have fun with it.

I moved up to the 22's at:
300 games
23% ROI
actual bankroll of about $300 and no fear of ruin since I could redeposit

SlimP

[/ QUOTE ]

damn man, i'm really sad i didn't see this til now... everyone else got to rip this apart but not me =(

what's wrong with it is that unlike you, the OP of this opinion didn't qualify with "as long as you're a good enough to be a winning player." by his suggestion, you should just play and move around blindly. so if you had a million dollars, but stunk, you should start at like, the step 5 highers or something, and move down only when you lost a ton. etc.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this advice. I don't know why several posters think it is retarded. There isn't really that much difference between the levels so if you can beat one there is good chance you can beat the next. If nothing else it would be good practice. You are costing yourself a good amount of money if you would be able to beat the next level and don't move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've only slimly managed to not be the stupidest sounding person in this thread so far, and that's only because you didn't get here first.

no, wait, the me too + new stupid thing = you stupidest so far.

citanul

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this advice. I don't know why several posters think it is retarded. There isn't really that much difference between the levels so if you can beat one there is good chance you can beat the next. If nothing else it would be good practice. You are costing yourself a good amount of money if you would be able to beat the next level and don't move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've only slimly managed to not be the stupidest sounding person in this thread so far, and that's only because you didn't get here first.

no, wait, the me too + new stupid thing = you stupidest so far.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I just laughed out loud...ouch.

[Mr_J]

I've played about a dozen $11s in my life, and 8 of those were when I decided to do my first set of 8 tabling. I pretty much started at the $33s.

[tminus]

i move up when (1) im bored (2) my bankroll is dwindling
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[citanul]

just under 500 games, just over 43%
as i've been telling people, the time at which i played my games like that in bulk, the games were REALLY easy. having played a few games since then, i can vouch for them being harder.

my ROI in those games since then is like 11 games played, -100% roi

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, unqualified by "if you are a winning player." Some people have other goals in poker than winning money. They have to because most people can't win money long-term playing poker. I'm still willing to accept that I could be on a 1000-tournament heater and might still be a losing player. Anyway, in defense of the OP here, if a losing player gets his rocks off by playing Step 5 Highers, let that player do so. If he has fun then it's money well spent. A bankroll that's "big enough" means different things to a player depending on whether the player is a long-term winner or a long-term loser. Especially since so much is thrown around along the lines of "move up at 20/30/50/100 buy-ins and down at X buy-ins," which is all meaningless without context BTW, I'd rather people ask "How big is 'big enough'?" rather than "When should I move up?" because it forces them to define their goals for poker rather than just blindly stabbing around trying to imitate the online pros without the necessary skills.

Q: When should I move up?
A: When your bankroll is big enough.
Q: When is my bankroll big enough?
return Q: Are you a winning player?
return A: I don't know.
A: Assume you're a loser. Play whatever level would be the most fun as long as you don't mind losing all the money you put in until you can tell if you're a winner player. Then come back and ask again.

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
OK...i have 6 109s under my belt...2/1/0/2/0/1/0/0/0/0
I should go hit the 215s, yeah /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Heh. My shrinky balls stay put at the 55s/22s.

BL'...."gold medal in small samplesizes, 2005"

[/ QUOTE ]

That finish distribution is perfect...

-IV

[Phill S]

Moving up too soon is less wrong than moving down too late.

If you think your a winning player long term and can move down when it all turns south, your bankroll doesnt actually need to be anywhere near the 'solid' figure.

Quick roll thoughts:
Most people: 30-50 buy ins
Raptor (to name one): 50-100
Me: 20 (but ONLY if you can drop down without any second thought if you run bad)

As for ROI, your figure isnt that important. Your not going to be playing 10000 games to get it accurate, and if you wait 1000 games youve lost a lot of $ by not moving up sooner. As long as its in a 'winning range' of 10-30% over a couple of hundred, your prolly ready for the next level.

Phill

[Mr_J]

Only problem is it's hugely -ev to have to keep dropping down in levels, which will happen if you use a 20 buyin BR. A bad run might see a 109er have to drop to the 33s or worse???

Having to keep changing buyins even daily doesn't allow you to get into a rhythm either.

Saving 40-50 buyins for the next level also allows you to mature (build on your skills) at the current level.

If you are a $22er-$33er who is skilled enough to play the 109s it won't take long to save up a 40 buyin BR anyway.

Moving up as soon as possible is fine, but there are disadvantages. Operating on a smaller BR than you can afford is just -ev.

[citanul]

there was a long thread a while back about daliman and his bankroll management skills, or lack thereof. that discussion was very good and i recomment that anyone looking to find a talk about gambling v playing with a strong bankroll read it.

i have nothing against taking earlier shots at the levels higher than you are playing. and there is nothing at all wrong with gambling with your whole bankroll if it is actually a replenishable sum. additionally, if you don't care if you lose the money, it's ok to just gamble.

but i do take issue with the idea that if you've got a lot of money, you must be ok gambling for high stakes, just because the money is worth less. some people can/do play for entertainment, but just because you are rich doesn't mean that you are such a person.

citanul

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
Moving up too soon is less wrong than moving down too late.

If you think your a winning player long term and can move down when it all turns south, your bankroll doesnt actually need to be anywhere near the 'solid' figure.

Quick roll thoughts:
Most people: 30-50 buy ins
Raptor (to name one): 50-100
Me: 20 (but ONLY if you can drop down without any second thought if you run bad)

As for ROI, your figure isnt that important. Your not going to be playing 10000 games to get it accurate, and if you wait 1000 games youve lost a lot of $ by not moving up sooner. As long as its in a 'winning range' of 10-30% over a couple of hundred, your prolly ready for the next level.

Phill

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as bankroll questions go, I'd say that if you're doing it full-time you should have a minimum of 150-200 buyins ready for the inevitable swings for $55+ SNGs. This is much much more than others advocate but without a job it's very hard to rebuild after losing your bankroll. I'm personally going through a really bad run right now where if I had only 30 buyins I'd be hurting like hell.

[citanul]

btw, bah on you. this is quite fine advice, and i came back here to reread it to see if it was flamable. sigh.

[Phill S]

I agree its not a perfect system, but its a system. Its also one i dont use as is.

But if im running bad i do drop to 10s. If im running good i hit the 30s. I generally play the 20s though.

If/when i get to the 100 level, im sure as fook gonna have a solid roll. But 10s and 20s run so close that its prolly more profitable to take that shot rather than play another 100 10s.

Big rolls is a long term thing. Small rolls is short term. It also becomes much less correct beyond the 22/33 switch.

[Phill S]

Obviously if your making your living from poker, you should have a big bankroll.

Its not that i dont know bankroll theory, its just i advocate a different method for when you start out.

Phill

[bkbluedevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Only problem is it's hugely -ev to have to keep dropping down in levels, which will happen if you use a 20 buyin BR. A bad run might see a 109er have to drop to the 33s or worse???

Having to keep changing buyins even daily doesn't allow you to get into a rhythm either.

Saving 40-50 buyins for the next level also allows you to mature (build on your skills) at the current level.

If you are a $22er-$33er who is skilled enough to play the 109s it won't take long to save up a 40 buyin BR anyway.

Moving up as soon as possible is fine, but there are disadvantages. Operating on a smaller BR than you can afford is just -ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this advice is greatly different than dmkimmel's. Why not move up when you hit like 50 buy ins and move down when you have less than 50 buy ins, think you could do this with a smaller number? I also don't see how people can think this is "moranic" or w/e the hell they called it. Curtains used such a system in his 8 tabling. Strass reccommended moving up as soon as I hit 30 buy ins for the next level. Are you going to call them stupid, citanul? No instead you just like to boost your ego picking on posters who's number by their name isn't as big as yours. It's retarded that you think the post needed to be clarified by "if you are a winning player." Obviously if you suck your going to lose your money anyway.

As far as you thinking jumping around is -EV, I think staying at the 10 and 20 dollar level with a 7k bankroll is much, much, much more -EV. This is true in both the SR with the likely immediate profits you are giving up and the LR since you are improving at a much slower pace.

[DMACM]

I'm with you on moving down when things go bad. Starting out at a new level I can't imagine dropping 10 buy ins and maintaining confidence. thx

[LuvDemNutz]

Does anybody play mutliple levels at the same time?

I often find myself in playing one $20, one $30 and one $50 at the same time.

[gildwulf]

Yea I usually play 2 20s and 2 30s

[wiggs73]

Yeah, I've done this before when I tried using a 'rolling bankroll' that I read about from I think Slim Pickens. Basically you divide your bankroll by 30 and then get the exact combination of buy-ins going so that you have 30 buy-ins for that set.

So if you have $415, you might fire up 3 11s and 1 22. I found that I wasn't a huge fan of this for some reason, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless and some may like it.

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
you've only slimly managed to not be the stupidest sounding person in this thread so far, and that's only because you didn't get here first.

no, wait, the me too + new stupid thing = you stupidest so far.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, can we get a moderator in this forum? Posts like this turn potentially solid threats into deteriorating flame wars that result in an excellent waste of space in the 2+2 archives.


Come on cit, you can back yourself up a little better than this. There's some real discussion to be had here. And if you don't think so, then why post?


Kings

[microbet]

Little over 300, little over 30%.

Regarding the bankroll and moving up talk:

Some people move up slowly because they don't have the gambool in them. I've been doing fine over the small sample of $55s I've played, but I'm definitely starting to feel a little uncomfortable with the stakes eventhough I can afford it. It's funny how $200-$300 or so is about what I've felt comfortable gambling all my adult life, whether it was playing blackjack in college when that was most of my money or later times when I was loaded (I used to have a lot more money before I had kids (sorry, Drapes)). It will be a struggle for me to make it to the higher buyins, no matter how good my results are.

[dmmikkel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares how good u are. Move up when ur bankroll is big enough and down when its not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with this? If you're good enough to be a winning player, you will move up as your bankroll increases and down whenever a bad run hits you, but you'll get to keep playing. If you're not a winning player, you'll bust anyway, so have fun with it.

I moved up to the 22's at:
300 games
23% ROI
actual bankroll of about $300 and no fear of ruin since I could redeposit

SlimP

[/ QUOTE ]

damn man, i'm really sad i didn't see this til now... everyone else got to rip this apart but not me =(

what's wrong with it is that unlike you, the OP of this opinion didn't qualify with "as long as you're a good enough to be a winning player." by his suggestion, you should just play and move around blindly. so if you had a million dollars, but stunk, you should start at like, the step 5 highers or something, and move down only when you lost a ton. etc.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a large enough bankroll you can afford to play at that level. If it turns out you're not a winning player you'll move down again.

After a while of moving up/down between your winning/losing level you will either
1) Get more experience and start to beat the new level
2) Figure our that you DON'T beat it and settle for the one you beat

What's wrong with that advice?

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
you've only slimly managed to not be the stupidest sounding person in this thread so far, and that's only because you didn't get here first.

no, wait, the me too + new stupid thing = you stupidest so far.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THIS, this is moderation!
The citanul we love and missed in his absence.

(and to the flamee, man, he ripped a few of my posts back in the day too)

BL'

[The Don]

I moved up a few times. I just don't feel as though the 11s are that profitable and I don't know how people do so well in them. First time I had a 1.5k roll (built up mostly in PLO and NL cash games) and I dropped 30 buyins at the 11s in 2 days. I was frustrated playing against a table full of Gus Hansens with no folding equity and having to deal with constant minraises. I moved up to the $22s and made 1.2k in 5 days. My ROI was likely in the negatives at the 11s. Next I moved down to the 11s when I started 8 tabling. Dropped another 35 buyins very quickly (yeah, I know variance and getting used to 8 tabling). Then (like a smart gambler heh) I decided to move up to recoup my losses. I made 1.8k that next week and have never look back. I would estimate my lifetime ROI at the 11s to be around 10% (no stats, have played around 800). My lifetime at the 22s is around 20% (1000 or so, 25% over my last 550).

[citanul]

the problem is that if you start with a million dollars and you stink you lose it all. ?

citanul

[Phill S]

If you have a million $ bankroll why are you playing SnGs in the first place?

At least if you are, hire zeejustin or jason strasser to tutor you at the highest level games and 1-4 table them.

If you have that much money, you wont be moving up and down trying to learn to play. Unless your a retard.

Phill

[dmmikkel]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that if you start with a million dollars and you stink you lose it all. ?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

You should think of the size of a loss relative to your income/fortune. If you are a losing player you will lose it all anyway. You can argue that a billionair wanting to spend $1million on online poker would last longer at lower stakes, but he wouldn't have as much fun.

So basicly your saying a losing millionaire should play as low as possible? I say they shouldn't play at all, but if they want to play why play stakes where the money doesn't matter to them?

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that if you start with a million dollars and you stink you lose it all. ?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

You should think of the size of a loss relative to your income/fortune. If you are a losing player you will lose it all anyway. You can argue that a billionair wanting to spend $1million on online poker would last longer at lower stakes, but he wouldn't have as much fun.

So basicly your saying a losing millionaire should play as low as possible? I say they shouldn't play at all, but if they want to play why play stakes where the money doesn't matter to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a billion dollars, money is meaningless anyways so why not play high stakes and lose your million.

[bkbluedevil]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that if you start with a million dollars and you stink you lose it all. ?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Andy Beal? If you have million to lose who cares. If you want to use this formulaic approach to BR management, start at a level you are comfortable playing at with a bankroll that is adequate for that level. A similar approach would be what curtains did with his 8 tabling. He didn't look at how big his bankroll was to begin with but rather his profit. When his profit reached X he moved up and would move down if he had a bad run at the next level.

[dmmikkel]

well a million to a billionaire would be meaningless, but you get the idea =)

Point is if you can afford it, why don't play it?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
well a million to a billionaire would be meaningless, but you get the idea =)

Point is if you can afford it, why don't play it?

[/ QUOTE ]

because many people's utility function of entertainment would not increase linearly or exponentially with amount of money paid for. ie, a very possible millionaire or billionaire would have the same amount of fun playing a $10 as a $200 or a $1000, in part because the buyins are not so diverse for him.

so, in other words, it is in part because "if you have a million to blow because you have lots more, why would you blow it?"

or, "playing for high stakes does not necessarilly increase excitement/enjoyment."

citanul

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well a million to a billionaire would be meaningless, but you get the idea =)

Point is if you can afford it, why don't play it?

[/ QUOTE ]

because many people's utility function of entertainment would not increase linearly or exponentially with amount of money paid for. ie, a very possible millionaire or billionaire would have the same amount of fun playing a $10 as a $200 or a $1000, in part because the buyins are not so diverse for him.

so, in other words, it is in part because "if you have a million to blow because you have lots more, why would you blow it?"

or, "playing for high stakes does not necessarilly increase excitement/enjoyment."

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're all making broad, sweeping assumptions about why people play poker.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're all making broad, sweeping assumptions about why people play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

and to make it better, we're doing so totally off the topic of the original post.

citanul

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
A similar approach would be what curtains did with his 8 tabling. He didn't look at how big his bankroll was to begin with but rather his profit. When his profit reached X he moved up and would move down if he had a bad run at the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curtains dropped down to the $11s because he blew his bankroll buying wierd dogs.

[bkbluedevil]

[ QUOTE ]


Curtains dropped down to the $11s because he blew his bankroll buying wierd dogs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Likely but here is a post of his

[ QUOTE ]
Amount of money in account is irrelevant.

Play 8 tables of $11. Play them all day or whatever. On the following day, see what your running total is from playing sit and gos. If you are up $200 (10x the buyin of the next level), then replcae one of your $11s with a $22. Keep doing this until youve won I guess $1600 (80x the buyin of the next level) at which point youll be playing 8 $22s and then you repeat for every level..


[/ QUOTE ]

[USCSigma1097]

This may be a little off topic, but I don't think you can move up to new levels until you are totally comfortable with the amount of money in play. For example, I currently have a 35 percent ROI in the 11's, and I do very well in the 22's, but I can't handle the bad beats as well at the 22's. For example, when someone sucks out terribly on me at the twenty two's, it throws my game off badly because I think to myself "that luckbox just cost me a hundred bucks". Until I can learn to shake off the beats like I can at the 11's, I won't be as good of a player and thus I can't move up.

Thoughts?

Sigma

[dmmikkel]

If you feel bad about a beat in the 22s maybe your bankroll isn't large enough. If you had $2-4k would you still feel the same?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've done this before when I tried using a 'rolling bankroll' that I read about from I think Slim Pickens. Basically you divide your bankroll by 30 and then get the exact combination of buy-ins going so that you have 30 buy-ins for that set.

So if you have $415, you might fire up 3 11s and 1 22. I found that I wasn't a huge fan of this for some reason, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless and some may like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first heard this idea I thought it was fantastic (it wasn't mine, but I forget whose it was), but after trying it, I found I necessarily paid less attention to the lower buy-in tables. I have to play all four at the same buy-in in order to focus on them equally.

SlimP

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
because many people's utility function of entertainment would not increase linearly or exponentially with amount of money paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this statement. It looks like we're both making no assuptions about this function while most others are. I'm saying if there's any component of added fun in playing the higher buy-ins, to hell with bankroll. Go nuts. Yours is a complimentary argument that if it isn't any more fun to play at a higher level, why waste the extra money?

I don't like seeing people tear into another poster for a statement, that while somewhat poorly explained, is actually quite a well-crafted piece of advice coming from a poster who clearly understands the inner workings of variance.

To add something hopefully useful for the OP: I'll say what others have said. Don't worry about specific numbers for ROI or bankroll in deciding when to move up. Most of all, make sure you are psychologically comfortable playing the 22's before trying to make a permenant move. Give yourself some room to fail a little (15 buy-ins is my number) before you decide to move back down.

SlimP