Opinions on skipping the 30's and moving to 50's

[ZeroPointMachine]

I've been killing the 20's(45% ITM & 34%ROI for 300 games) and have increased my BR to about 3K. No doubt I've been running pretty well. The last 50 have been a monster heater.

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's. I don't want to struggle at the 30's if I would be making more at the 50's. I work 9-5 and play 3-4 sets(4 table) per night and 8-10 Sat and Sun.

I know this may be a well worn topic, but the SNG environment is pretty fluid IMO and I would like to hear from those that are making(or have recently made) the transition from 20-30-50.

Thanks again to all the great posters on this forum. Your help has been tremendous.
/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Slim Pickens]

I'm in the 20-->30-->50 mode now. Here's what I've experienced so far. Over my limited sample (92 33's, 484 22's) I've seen at least as much awful play at the 33's as the 22's, and the HU play (where you can really figure out if your opponent has at least 1/4 of a clue) is usually decent, and a big step above what it is at the 11's. I think the advice to skip the 33's is bad because it only slows your bankroll-building to the 55's. After moving to the 33's, I see no reason why someone should be able to consistenly and thoroughly beat the 22's, yet "struggle" at the 33's.

SlimP

[citanul]

there's been a lot of talk on moving up lately and how to do it and when to do it, etc.

one thing that could summarize a lot of the help/suggestions, of at least one school of thought:

you can always take shots at stakes higher than your current one, or just move around and up in stakes whenever you want, as long as you are disciplined in moving down when it is necessary. ie: don't play outside of your bankroll it is a good way to lose it.

citanul

[ZeroPointMachine]

Thanks for the input.

I think my bankroll variance tolerance is more suited to $132 dollar sets than it is to $220 sets right now. But I didn't want to miss getting to the 50's by falling into some pit at the 30's. An earlie poster referred to the 30's as suicidal(no opinion on poster)

At the same time what I'm doing now is working great, but I feel my interest/attention slipping just a little and every so often blow off a hand or table or set...

I know 50's would get my attention.

[Slim Pickens]

Here's the thing: since the jump from the 22's to the 33's represents the smallest fractional difference in buy-in available between two levels, it is the one most likely to be subject to "I lost $x at the 33's and made back >$x at the 22's in about the same number of games, so the 22's must be easier." evaluations due entirely to variance. I've swapped HH's with one of the two posters who've advocating skipping the 33's, so I know he's a solid player, but I think he's wrong about this one. Of coure, it helps to have a brand-spanking-new turbo-charged Raptor5000 series luckbox arrive just as you're making that jump to the 55's. Mine's on backorder.

I moved up to the 33's by mixing in a single-table 33 every onece in a while after finishing 4-tabling 22's for the night, and I plan to do the same with an occasional 55 now that my bankroll supports me full-timing the 33's.

[Big Limpin']

Why dont you play 100 33s and 100 55s. But do em together. Like, a quad of 33s, then a quad of 55s, back and forth.
True, 100 isnt enought to "know" how you can do, exactly, but it should be enough to give you a gut-feeling about where you stand, and whether you are likely to profit more at a higher level.

[johnnybeef]

You are Br'd for the 55s (assuming that you are a winning player there), but I still recommend playing at least 100 or so 33s. The reason for this is because there are little nuances to be learned at every level. That being said, the difference in difficulty between the two levels can be seen by the strength/weakness of the opposition at the two levels. At the 33s, there are many more players who are terrible at all aspects of a sng. At the 55s, you will find more players who know to play tight early, but, suck when it gets to <6 players. When you add in the extra t200, someone who is a late game expert may do better at the 55s, although it is not a guarantee.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to struggle at the 30's if I would be making more at the 50's. I work 9-5 and play 3-4 sets(4 table) per night and 8-10 Sat and Sun.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you struggle at the 33s you will struggle *even more* at the 55s....so if struggling will be difficult for you to deal with, then this is even more reason not to jump to the 55s.

Play whatever you want to play as long as you're willing to adjust to different levels. The 55s are certainly beatable but you will have to actively extract chips (as opposed to more passive extraction in the 22s) in order to do really well. This applies to the 33s as well but those extra 200 chips make active chip extraction even more important.

If your main reason for skipping the 33s is b/c you have heard the 55s are easier...then I advise you to not skip the 33s.

Yugoslav

[pergesu]

curtains and citanul say play the 33s. gildonk says to skip em.

You choose whose advice to take /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[valenzuela]

My honest advice:
If u want to play the 55s, play them. Somehow many posters think that money is the only reason we all play, if you will be a happier human being playing the 55s play the 55s, if you will be a happier human being playing the 33s , play the 33s.

[UMTerp]

If you're really doing that well at the $22's, and you're bankrolled for the $55's, play them. You'll do fine.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
curtains and citanul say play the 33s. gildonk says to skip em.

You choose whose advice to take /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hey hey, i didn't say play the 30s.

i personally hate the 30s.

i just said take shots up, wherever you want to take em.

citanul

[bjb23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
curtains and citanul say play the 33s. gildonk says to skip em.

You choose whose advice to take /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hey hey, i didn't say play the 30s.
i personally hate the 30s.
citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

care to elaborate on why you hate the 30s?

[Jay36489]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

And to the OP, by my calculations you are playing 88 SNGs/week. I agree with cit that there's nothing wrong with taking shots if you are BRed and arent too proud to move down, but what do you have to lose by playing 2-3 weeks at the 30s before taking your shot? Thats 175-250 SNGs and that isn't enough to tell you your ROI there, but enough for you to get a feel of the play there.

[Mr_Oog]

Having just made this move myself over the last couple of months I would suggest going to the 30's before tackling the 50's. The 50's are most certainly a more difficult game.

However, I would make no hard and fast rule as to how many of the 30's you should play. Play the 30's until you are comfortable with the idea of having $220 in play (as you mentioned earlier) and until you feel you have learned a good amount from them. This may take 50 games and this may take 5000 games, only you can answer that question.

-Mike

[microbet]

I don't play a high volume, so I'm not the best source, but I have recently played batches of $33s and $55s and I think the players at the $55s, on average, are noticably better. There certainly seem to be more people that start pushing at around 10BBs and fewer that start pushing at 100BBs.

[microbet]

I don't play a high volume, so I'm not the best source, but I have recently played batches of $33s and $55s and I think the players at the $55s, on average, are noticably better. There certainly seem to be more people that start pushing at around 10BBs and fewer that start pushing at 100BBs.

Also, at the $55s I'm constantly seeing the same multi-tablers and more than one of my tables.

[nate_king1]

Your on luckbox, try 2000 33s and see if you still get 34 ROI, if you do that, I will have your baby!(You can also move up)

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
curtains and citanul say play the 33s. gildonk says to skip em.

You choose whose advice to take /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cant beat the 33s you cant beat the 55s. If you are in a ridiculous rush to win as much money as possible then go right to the 55s. However I feel like its best to experience every level for a little bit.

[Slim Pickens]

I wonder why people are in such a non-rush that they'd purposely stall at the 22's, building a bankroll for the 55's at ~66% of the rate they could achieve at the 33's. It makes no sense to me exclusive of the added experience gained by playing a different level.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why people are in such a non-rush that they'd purposely stall at the 22's, building a bankroll for the 55's at ~66% of the rate they could achieve at the 33's. It makes no sense to me exclusive of the added experience gained by playing a different level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does everyone have to be in a rush? Maybe he likes making money, doesn't like variance, and wants to pick apart a softer game for a while. For those of us for whom poker is just a 2nd income (and source of enjoyment / relaxation), some of us aren't in quite the same hurry to move up. I just moved up to the 22s exclusively after building my B/R multi-tabling the 11s with some 22s thrown in occassionally.

It's nice not seeing wild swings in my B/R. I'll probably play at least 1000 games at the 22s before even thinking of moving up to the 33s.

[microbet]

Slim is currently working in a nuclear waste dump in Nevada and with his shortened life span he can't afford to move up slowly.

[lacky]

I dont like this. I think there are significant differences in going from a 800 chip game to a 1000 chip game. Going back and forth constantly will make adapting harder IMHO.

Steve

[adanthar]

Up until around a year ago 22's didn't even exist. I went from the 11's to the 33's without a problem, as did many others. Going from the 22's to the 55's is easier by comparison.

That said, if you see any sign in yourself that you can't handle the stakes, drop down.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, at the $55s I'm constantly seeing the same multi-tablers and more than one of my tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. I got bored and decided to pokerprophecy my whole table today because I was only 4 tabling. One of my tables had 5 other people with like a 40+% ITM over 100+ tourneys. I was not thrilled.

The 55s are most certainly harder than the 33s, I wouldn't jump just yet. Take your time.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most who have played both would disagree. Starting with more chips makes playing a bit more comfortable but they certainly arent easier.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
I dont like this. I think there are significant differences in going from a 800 chip game to a 1000 chip game. Going back and forth constantly will make adapting harder IMHO.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, but perhaps this would be beneficial in trying to determine which structure suits your strenghts the best. Certainly the differences would be more noticable.

[Pokerprowannabe]

Personnaly I play the 22's and 33's during the day hours and move up to the 55's and 109's after 11pm. My 1st place finishes are extremely good during the late night hours compared to the mid-day. And yes, you MUST be able to step down if you go on a losing streak. During the late night hours if I go on a short losing streak I will paly a few 22's or 33's to make it back. Playing at those leves at 1am is almost a guarantee for a good player to be ITM.

[Taraz]

I'm in the same boat as the OP and I have to say that the 33s have been much kinder to me than the 55s. I just started playing both a couple weeks ago and there really is a notable difference in skill in the 55s vs. the 33s.

While I agree that if you can beat the 22s at a decent rate you should be able to beat the 55s, the 33s don't require any extra skill to beat at the same rate as far as I have seen through 100 sngs.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim is currently working in a nuclear waste dump in Nevada and with his shortened life span he can't afford to move up slowly.

[/ QUOTE ]

My largest occupational hazard is having to drive five miles each way on Tropicana Ave. and it's not even close. The only place I see stupider behavior is at the 5+1's.

[Slim Pickens]

It's not a matter of being in a hurry. I just think that if the money means anything at all to you, it's foolish (or at least weak) to play at a lower level when you have both the bankroll and skill to play a slightly higher one.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of being in a hurry. I just think that if the money means anything at all to you, it's foolish (or at least weak) to play at a lower level when you have both the bankroll and skill to play a slightly higher one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But you gotta admit (this isn't directed toward you or anyone in particular) that alot of players think they are better than they really are because they have gotten on a short term heater. Then they move up and blow their B/R.

For every guy who succeeds wildly, there's probably countless other people that don't talk about their losses or drop out altogether after they crash and burn.

I just can't believe how much I lack in understanding of the game and yet I've been a winning player at my level. It makes me wonder how bad some of the people are who have or are moving up, you know?

[curtains]

Honestly I feel like I learned a lot playing at every single level, not just jumping into the 215s. It's like learning about the history of the game or something, you get a good feel for how all kinds of players and game situations play out.

Im very happy that I experienced all the levels as I think it helped shape the way I play today, and that I may be a slightly weaker player now if I had skipped a level or two. But okay I'm also completely insane, so this might not be relevant for anyone.

[45suited]

I agree with you, even playing tons of games on the 11s, I learned about the game and got alot of experience just from seeing alot of hands.

I've also started playing NL ring games, and right now I'm off to the casino to play some limit, possibly some Omaha too. Personally, I think it can only help in the long run to respect the game enough to try and go about it kind of systematically and learn before jumping wildly up in levels.

But I plan on playing the rest of my life and it's not my main source of income, so I can afford to be patient. Plus, like I said, I hate big swings in my B/R.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't believe how much I lack in understanding of the game and yet I've been a winning player at my level. It makes me wonder how bad some of the people are who have or are moving up, you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll send you some HH's of mine. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Really though, I think people staying at the 22's for too long, then skipping the 33's are missing a learning experience while wasting clock-hours, so why do it if your goal is to move up, right? It's bad on two facets. I also understand that a lot of people aren't motivated solely by moving up levels. If that's all that motivated me, I wouldn't play any O8 or live NLHE tourneys because it's a short-term -EV play for me, but I do it to get experience in different aspects of the game, which I hope to translate into learning at some point. I get what you're saying about wanting to keep a comfortable bankroll. That's fine. Bankroll consideration are entirely a matter of personal preference. Risk avoision. Certainly for a losing player on a heater, moving up too fast just makes the wild ride all that much faster, but I have to believe winning players must get comfortable playing higher stakes at some point if they want to take their game to higher skill levels, so why leave the training wheels on?

SlimP