Moving up when starting out

I have been playing for about 5 months and am studying the books. I started off with .25 cent tables and then when I had some downswings went to the .05 cent tables to learn the concepts while gradually increasing my bankroll. After a recent brief few days foray back up to the .25 cent tables I found, as was before, a maybe tighter and maybe more experienced group of players but I learned more there in just a short time but it was costly in confidence and bankroll when I had a run of "bad luck". Maybe I was being outplayed for my level but it's hard to get that experience at the .05 cent tables. I guess switching back and forth so that I play enough games to get additional experience at learning the basic concepts at the lower tables plus the experience with better players and playing tighter maybe myself when the conditions call for it is the answer. I see other players doing that, at times, too. Any comments?

[beaster]

I suggest you first grab a copy of Poker Tracker, if you haven't already. Even if you don't understand what all the numbers mean yet, it's crucial you begin tracking your play. You will understand it soon enough.

Concentrate on one level for the moment. Pick nickel/dimes and stick with it. Or try 0.10/0.20 if the hits at 0.25/0.50 are messing with your confidence and/or bankroll.

I think its crucial to stay at one level and play through at least 10k hands. While most here will tell you "small sample size", after 10k hands you should have a pretty good idea if you're beating the level. Feel confident? Padded your bankroll enough? Move up. Otherwise, continue studying and improving your game. Personally I feel you should be beating the nanos to the tune of at least 2+ BB/100, but others may have differing opinions. Break-even poker isn't saying much since these limits are usually not raked.

The book that helped me the most with the nanolimits was Lee Jones' Winning Low-Limit Hold'em. Read and re-read this text. It wasn't until I beat 0.10/0.20 that I moved on to other books.

Hope that helps. To give you an idea, I started out at 2c/4c, went to nickel/dimes for about 5k hands, then 0.10/0.20 for 10k. Beat all levels quite handily. Moved up 0.25/0.50 and it took me a solid 11k hands before I had both confidence and bankroll. Currently beating the pants off of 0.50/1. Hope I can keep it going.

[adamstewart]

For now, find some stakes that:

(a) you're comfortable with (financially)
(b) you feel you can beat


Work on it. Think of results in terms of "big bets" not "dollars." Don't be in a hurry to get to the higher stakes (you'll only end up losing if you're not ready).

Once you feel comfortable at a given level. Take a shot or two at a the next level up..... It's important that you can at least beat the nano-limits before you can beat the micro's...


Adam

Thanks for the encouragement and sound advice. Poker Tracker sounds interesting. If I have enough time to analyze all the statistics instead of just spending more time playing to get better, it may be worth it. I don't know how much 2+BB/100 is. I also don't know how many hands I've played in 5 months of about 3-4 hours a day average. I've been putting a lot of time in on poker since the bug bit me.
Yes, Lee Jones' book was the first one I read. Many good points. I also like and have Ed Miller's new beginner's book, and I have two advanced books by Miller and Sklansky I'm studying.
If you're beating the pants off .50/1.00 maybe YOU should venture higher and see how it goes for a short time or amount.

Thanks Adam. I guess the level of players I play against will automatically move me up the the next higher level as shown by my increase in bankroll. As long as I don't get discouraged by big downswings I should be alright. My experience shows it always turns around (my luck or my playing) sooner than I anticipated or feared.

[hizo1]

You're taken the right steps in realizing that you need to first beat the nano's before moving onto the micros. I think it's really, really important that you develop your game to the fullest at each level before you move on "because I have the BR" or "because I can clear a bonus faster". Each level offers different sets of skills that you will require at higher levels in order to be successful in the long-term.

Finally, as you've probably already heard, read Small Stakes Hold Em by Ed Miller, and post hands and comments on the micro forums.

See you there and good luck.

hizo

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the level of players I play against will automatically move me up the the next higher level as shown by my increase in bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]


Remember this, though:

Bankroll does not necessarily correlate with skill. Just because on may have 300 BB's for the next level up, doesn't mean that person has the required skill to beat that level.

That said, never be afraid to "take shots" at the next level up once you: (

a) can spare the bankroll if you lose, and

b) feel confident in your game, in that you feel you have a reasonable chance of beating the game in question.


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Location: Crushing $0.50/$1

[/ QUOTE ]


Who you kidding?


/images/graemlins/blush.gif

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


Adam

[hizo1]

SSSHHHHHHH STEWIE I'M trying to get people to respect me! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
You're taken the right steps in realizing that you need to first beat the nano's before moving onto the micros.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

IMHO apart from learning the mechanics of the game, and learning to read the board (i.e spotting straights etc.) there is no financial purpose to nano-limits.
Flip burgers to bankroll yourself if you need more cash, it will take less time.

[RockPile]

dude i started out playing .05/.10 with $20 about a year ago and am now finally up to 1/2.. yes i suck but it is possible, it just can take a long time

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're taken the right steps in realizing that you need to first beat the nano's before moving onto the micros.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

IMHO apart from learning the mechanics of the game, and learning to read the board (i.e spotting straights etc.) there is no financial purpose to nano-limits.
Flip burgers to bankroll yourself if you need more cash, it will take less time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Although I've never played nano-limits, I suspect the caliber of play is somewhere on the continuum between Play Money and micro-limits.

Therefore it's a useful stepping stone (for some) on the road to improvement. If a player can't beat the nano-limits, then he/she will most likely lose at micro-limits.


Adam

[hizo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're taken the right steps in realizing that you need to first beat the nano's before moving onto the micros.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

IMHO apart from learning the mechanics of the game, and learning to read the board (i.e spotting straights etc.) there is no financial purpose to nano-limits.
Flip burgers to bankroll yourself if you need more cash, it will take less time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Although I've never played nano-limits, I suspect the caliber of play is somewhere on the continuum between Play Money and micro-limits.

Therefore it's a useful stepping stone (for some) on the road to improvement. If a player can't beat the nano-limits, then he/she will most likely lose at micro-limits.


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played nanos either, and I agree to a certain extent that the learning curve is steeper in the micro limits; ergo you learn much quicker. However I disagree that there's nothing to learn at the nano tables. Not everyone can afford or wants to drop 200 on a game that they are just learning. It's still poker and the same rules and basic concepts apply.

To exaggerate my point slightly, let's say OP had a high paying salary (like a cardiologist or something) that enabled him to make 10x the amount of the average north american. Should he therefore buy in initially for 10x the typical buy in and jump straight into a game with 10x the typical initial limit, ie. should he jump straight into 2-4 or 3/6? He would certainly spend a lot of money learning the game and would arguably learn quicker and at a more advanced level than your typical buy in. Say his eventual goal is to play 10/20. If we follow your argument then he should go back to flipping burgers/fixing broken hearts until he has the bankroll to play 10/20 or whatever. However it would be much cheaper and probably less psychologically straining to begin at a lower level, like .25/.5 or .5/1, in order to eventually move up gradually all the while learning and building confidence whilst simultaneously winning against weaker players.

It's a stretch, I know, but my point is that that there is some value at playing at nano-limits before you move up to micros if it makes YOU more comfortable.

hizo

[hizo1]

nice. i'd wager that, given the number of posts you have, you have a considerably better foundation going into 1/2 than the average 2+2er. good luck. (this is dependent on not having posted too much under the computertechnicalhelp and gossip forums)