The stunning hypocrisy of "moving up" advice

[ResidentParanoid]

I have thought about this for some time and its now time to speak. I think "advanced" players, say playing mid-stakes and higher, often give this advice to people asking for advice on "moving up" in limits: "Make some money at the lower limits, then "take shots" at the higher limits with a portion."

I consider this a +EV play for people in the higher limit games.

I will re-interpret the mid-limit players true advice in this way: "You can spend time at the measly, low limit games that I don't have the patience for. Harvest the meager dollars there for thousands of hands, and bring a significant amount to my limits where you are very likely to lose it all (because of variance or your inability to compete). Me and all of the +EV players at the higher limit will chop your earnings up. Then you can return to the low limit mines and continue harvesting the fish for me. Now, I don't want you to bring too much money to the higher limit game, because you might bust out completely, lose faith and never return to my game. So be sure to save some bankroll for the lower limit game."

Whether you know it or not, this is what you are doing. And when you ask for such advice, know the -EV game you are playing.

[HDPM]

How is this hypocricy since that is how many mid-limit players got there. The best way to move up is to win the lottery, have a successful career, or inherit a lot of money. Other people need to go about it differently. How can you learn any game without spending time and money? How much time, effort and money does it take to be good at golf, bowling, chess, pool, figure skating whatever? Do all players win? No. Is it easy to eke out a living? No. I have not heard anybody say it is.

[Easy E]

and the same "fact" for people entering casino poker for the first time, should we shut down poker altogether?

What method for moving up are YOU advocating in its' place?

Just because moving up is probably -EV for the new players (at whatever limit), does that make the advice WRONG?

I see nothing 'stunningly hypocritical' about the advice you are castigating. I see that as the only SMART way to move up.

Additionally, since the rake eats up a much smaller percentage of your play as you move up, moving up is ALSO the only "smart" thing to do (if you have the bankroll and ability to adjust your game).

You're going to have to do better than THAT.

[ResidentParanoid]

For an analogy, typical "moving up" advice is like this flawed answer to the question below:

Q: How do I play 79o in early position?

Advice from 2+2er: Set aside some money from your AA hands. When you have enough, take some shots at playing 79o in early position.

Follow up Q: I saved up my AA money and took a shot playing 79o from EP for a while. I blew all my AA money.

Follow up advice: You'll need at least X BB to handle the variance. Collect a little more AA money before you try it again.

[ResidentParanoid]

Note that I haven't said that moving up is bad. I think that much of the advice on the process of moving up is flawed or incomplete.

[J.R.]

This is nuts. The advice peddlers in your scenario have no knowledge of the advice seekers skills, they are just responding to the implicit premise made in the first place; that the person seeking to move up can beat a lower stakes game and believes they can hold their own at a higher stakes game.

You imply that the higher stakes players know the advice seeker's game is not strong enough to win in the higher stakes game. How is this so?

While it is possible that the two players could know each other, more often than not the mid-limit player knows nothing of the advice seeker's game, and is only offering FREE ADVICE. There is no malicious intent in that, only goodwill.

The one at fault here is the low stakes player who over-estimates their skills and mistakenly believes they can beat a mid-limit game. The advice peddlers are not saying the lower stakes player can beat the mid-limit game, what they are saying is assuming the lower stakes player has that game, the way to beat a mid stakes game is to move cautiously, take some time to get comfortable with the game and make sure you have the bankroll to withstand the swings that come in the mid-limits, which are tougher, more aggressive games that the low stakes player is accostumed to.

By asking the question in the first place, the low stakes player is implying they believe they have the skill to beat the mid-limit game. The mid-limit players are not giving bad advice, but only accepting that premise as true, and offering good advice, which is often same advice they heeded at some earlier point in their poker playing career. It is the low stakes player who is expressing impatient and over-confidence that is more often at fault in your scenario.

[pufferfish]

I don’t get what you’re saying either. I’m taking shots at online $2/$4 and $3/$6 (maybe not applicable to your complaint?) after having played $1/$2 and below for some time now. This is my second attempt at doing so.

I don’t quite have the BR for those limits but do have more than enough for $1/$2. So, I’m taking shots with the excess.

This seems to be the most natural way to work your way up. What’s your alternative?

pf

[J.R.]

Caveat emptor. The problem with your analogy is that the advice seeker does not disclose their skill is comporable to the EV of playing 79o in EP, and the advice peedler has no reason to assume so. In fact, its implicit in asking about moving up into tougher, more aggressive games that the advice seeker can beat the easier, more passive low limit games.

That implied premise is embedded in the advice itself, in the notion that one should build their roll at the lower limit (ie beat the lower limit game) and play higher with the roll built up by beating the lower limit game.

[andyfox]

I think the advice you see as stunning hypocrisy is excellent advice. If a person can't beat the lower limit games, they will not be able to beat the mid limit games, since the average level of opponent skill rises as one moves up in limits.

If one wants to move up, then one should have a sufficient bankroll, from both an economic and psychological standpoint. I would recommend not bringing more than one buy-in or so to one's first venture at higher stakes. I do this not because I am afraid someone will go completely bust and never come to donate. I do this because I am afraid someone will go completely bust. I assume people enjoy playing and enjoy winning so if one has a bad experience at the higher limit, it would be a happier experience if they still had a bankroll to go play, and start winning again, at the lower limit.

Besides, for all I know, someone moving up to my game might play better than I do. It might be -EV for me.

I note also that many of the mid and higher limit players have given specific advice on how those games play differently from the lower limit games.

If you feel those giving such advice are doing so out of ulterior motive that are ugly, can you cite specific examples?

[J.R.]

The only flaw is the player who tries to move up without the requisite skill for the game they are trying to beat. It is hard, but one has to be able to critique themselves fairly and honestly. A lack of this self-awareness does not make the advice concerning moving up flawed.

[ResidentParanoid]

I think the advice you see as stunning hypocrisy is excellent advice. If a person can't beat the lower limit games, they will not be able to beat the mid limit games, since the average level of opponent skill rises as one moves up in limits.

Agreed. Then shouldn't bankroll issues be only one of many considerations in the advice?

Besides, for all I know, someone moving up to my game might play better than I do. It might be -EV for me.

Certainly, for the majority of players, moving up is a -EV play. So encouraging moving up is a good thing for you. Note: I am not suggesting that you or many of the 2+2ers are doing this maliciously.


I note also that many of the mid and higher limit players have given specific advice on how those games play differently from the lower limit games.

I agree that some give very good advice, relating to changing texture of games as limits move up. This is where the advice should start. Some of the advice is very good. Unfortunately, much falls into this category: "You must be good enough for the new limits, you just didn't bring enough money."

If you feel those giving such advice are doing so out of ulterior motive that are ugly, can you cite specific examples?

I don't think most of it is out of ulterior motive. But implicitly, when you send a poorly prepared player onto a higher limit, you are just sending his well planned bankroll of "1 buy-in" shots to the guillotine.

[ResidentParanoid]

You imply that the higher stakes players know the advice seeker's game is not strong enough to win in the higher stakes game. How is this so?

I imply that, the vast majority of "mover uppers" are losers at the higher limit.

While it is possible that the two players could know each other, more often than not the mid-limit player knows nothing of the advice seeker's game, and is only offering FREE ADVICE. There is no malicious intent in that, only goodwill.

I might not be malicious in telling someone to play 97o in EP, just misinformed. Just like I may not be malicious in encouraging someone to move up without knowing the quality of their game, just misinformed.


Note that I didn't say that players should never move up, but that the advice is hypocritical at worst, often incomplete at best. Some of the advice is often not in the spirit of this site.

Many players who have tried to move up and get toasted post regularly. The most common type of reply is: "You need at least X BB to make that kind of move up, just considering variance." This is usually in response to someone who tried, for example, to move up using X/5 as bankroll.

More complete advice on bankroll considerations would be: "If you are a +EV player at the new limit, you need at least X BB to make that kind of move up, just considering variance. Also, you will be -EV for some time, so bring along Y BB for the cost of your education. Also, Z% of players are never able to move up successfully, so moving up is kind of like playing 97o in early position. You decide if you're ready to play that game."

The value of Y and Z seem to be missing or buried in too many of these advice posts, and no one calls anybody on it.

[Jimbo]

"I don't think most of it is out of ulterior motive. But implicitly, when you send a poorly prepared player onto a higher limit, you are just sending his well planned bankroll of "1 buy-in" shots to the guillotine."

Am I the only one here who does not see anything wrong with this if it is happening at all? What are the higher limit players supposed to do? Beat each others' brains out till the ocassional tourist walks in? I consider it like advertising: "Here ye, here ye, step right up to this window and see things you have only dreamed about! Green chips stacked higher than your hat and all available if you only give it a shot. Here ye, here ye step up and bring your buy-in, but save some for a rainey day!" See, just like a carnival barker, not hypocritical at all.

[ResidentParanoid]

Another analogy: Advising someone to play Kxs at a loose table without counseling on the need to let it go to K high flops with no draw. Certainly, you don't know the players psychology. So you tell him, if you can't throw away top pair, you can't play Kxs profitably.

[J.R.]

But implicitly, when you send a poorly prepared player onto a higher limit, you are just sending his well planned bankroll of "1 buy-in" shots to the guillotine.

How is the mid-limit player giving free advice on an often anonymous internet chat board supposed to differentiate the adequately prepared player from the poorly prepared player?

It should be patently obvious to the player seeking to move up that the mid-limit game is quite likely to be more difficult than the game they are playing in, the decision is theirs to make, and they have no one to blame for playing over their head but themselves.

[beernutz]

Who wants +EV players in lower limits moving up to their limits? I prefer the total fish in the low limit games moving up or jumping straight into the games I'm in. Doesn't an upper limit player giving this so-called hypocritical advice offer it under the assumption that the low limit player is a winner at their current limit? Isn't that part of your assumption? If I wanted to give the players in your scenario hypocritical advice I'd tell them to stay where they are and never try moving up.

A question for you: aren't most players at almost all limits overall losers?

[J.R.]

the vast majority of "mover uppers" are losers at the higher limit.

So would what you see as hypocrisy be ameliorated if the advice peedlers made the disclosure that, just as it is in the lower limit game, the majority of players in a mid or high limit game are losers as well, and there is a risk in gambling, and you are not guaranteed to win just because you have won in the past at a lower limit game?

I'm sorry, but if you aren't bright enough to make this realization, you won't be beating any game.

Also, Z% of players are never able to move up successfully, so moving up is kind of like playing 97o in early position. You decide if you're ready to play that game."

Although I disagree that moving up is like playing 97o UTG (since I don't think anyone can play that profitably), if you need to be informed of the high risk of failure, well, poker might not be for you. I also think it is reasonable for someone giving advice to assume a player who is considering moving up from a limit they are already beating has this basic understanding of poker.

[ResidentParanoid]

Agreed, I'm assuming in my question that the player asking about moving up is very likely a winning player at the limit he is used to playing in. Agreed, I like to play against fish. But I don't post advice suggesting to be helpful that just makes me money at the expense of the poster. We might as well be RGP then.

A question for you: aren't most players at almost all limits overall losers?

I can only go by what others state as far as the overall percentage of winners and losers. I have no data on this.
But it's clear that many profitable players become losing players because they move up to limits they can't handle. What's that old line about people rising to the level of their incompetency? Some of the posts seem to try to squeeze that last bit of EV out of the poker world.

[ResidentParanoid]

I'm sorry, but if you aren't bright enough to make this realization, you won't be beating any game. if you need to be informed of the high risk of failure, well, poker might not be for you. I also think it is reasonable for someone giving advice to assume a player who is considering moving up from a limit they are already beating has this basic understanding of poker.

Or I could just choose to take advantage of it.
See the post from Jimbo...

Although I disagree that moving up is like playing 97o UTG (since I don't think anyone can play that profitably),

Probably. I tried to pick a lousy hand that I would toss without a thought.

[Easy E]

What are we supposed to do- write a book every time someone asks the question? Tell them to re-read and study TOP, HEFAP and Ciffone cover to cover, then think about it for a month, then rob a bank for adequate bankroll and THEN spend all of their time at that limit?

Implicit in any "moving up" advice, when it crosses a skill barrier, is
a) You probably have a learning curve to experience first
b) Therefore, don't risk your whole bankroll

If ANYONE is STUPID enough to go into a higher-limit game, based on the words of advice from ANYONE, and expect 100% success (or at least not failure), THEY ARE AN IDIOT!

"I think that much of the advice on the process of moving up is flawed or incomplete. "
That statement can be applied to ANY advice on almost ANY topic that has any depth about it.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? you say you're not accusing anyone of 'bad intentions' but that SURE is what's implied by your original post.

[Easy E]

Is this board in place for the primary purpose of recruiting victims, or educating about poker?

[ResidentParanoid]

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

I think most are trying to be helpful, but leave out some important information.

I think some are not trying to be helpful (see Jimbo below). I think we would attack someone for suggesting to play a weak hand out of position. We should identify the subtle, -EV, bad advice and attack it just as much.

[Ulysses]

Unfortunately, much falls into this category: "You must be good enough for the new limits, you just didn't bring enough money."

Read more responses on the Mid-High Limit forum. I can't recall the last time I saw a response like the one you quote above. I can think of many that go something like this: "If you can't lay down Top-Pair/weak-kicker on that board, then you don't have the skill required to play that suited connector in that spot." I can also think of a number of responses that say things like "You need to re-raise in that spot to maximize your win and apply pressure to the second-best and drawing hands if you're going to beat the game at these limits."

They are definitely not alone in this regard, but mike. l and snakehead stand out as posters who consistently and clearly articulate the kinds of skills required to beat the higher limit games and also have suggested in their responses that certain posters either not move up or even move down in limit based on the tentative way they played certain hands.

Look, I love it as much as anyone else when a completely unprepared sucker with a lot of money sits down at my table. But I just don't see posters on this forum trying to entice unprepared low-limit players into the higher games.

[Jimbo]

"Is this board in place for the primary purpose of recruiting victims, or educating about poker?"

This is a good question and I suppose it differs from person to person. For me it is simply a way to pass some time although I ocassionally come away with a juicy and useful tidbit I certainly do not expect nor do I receive my primary poker education from these forums. Not being a full time professional "recruiting victims" for me would be more trouble than it is worth. There are enough poor players at any limit I have seen not to bother with encouraging someone to move up just for additional "fresh meat".

In my first post I was simply making an observation (not an endorsement nor agreement) that if that is the higher limit players intent by offering the advice I do not have a problem with that nor do I consider it hypocritical in the context which it was initially posted.

[Easy E]

I think most are trying to be helpful, but leave out some important information.

Intentionally? if so, that is their right (you don't want to give EVERYTHING away) but I haven't found that too many people who post regularly do so.
Besides, covering EVERYTHING that is important is exhausting and often repetitive, since people don't use Search as a precursor to posting their questions.

I think we would attack someone for suggesting to play a weak hand out of position. We should identify the subtle, -EV, bad advice and attack it just as much.

When HAVEN'T you seen that happen?

Anyway, let me close this thread out by saying that your initial post was WAY too confrontational, if you weren't making a blanket accusation.

[beernutz]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But I don't post advice suggesting to be helpful that just makes me money at the expense of the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since your whole argument is based on the assumption that this is happening, can you site some examples?

[beernutz]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But I don't post advice suggesting to be helpful that just makes me money at the expense of the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since your whole argument is based on the assumption that this is happening, can you cite some examples?

[Easy E]

needs some work!

nor do I receive my primary poker education from these forums.
You get it from anywhere else, besides playing?

In my first post I was simply making an observation (not an endorsement nor agreement) that if that is the higher limit players intent by offering the advice I do not have a problem with that nor do I consider it hypocritical in the context which it was initially posted

I could consider it hypocritical, given the implied spirit in which these forums are presented. Focused as they are around the 2+2 books, which purport to "teaching correct play," giving bad advice intentionally seems to violate that spirit.

IMO, if you don't have a problem with someone taking a particular action, then you are implicitly condoning it.

But as you said, each poster can do and take out of the Forums what they choose. Without reviewing all of your posts, however, I don't believe you subscribe to so self-serving a goal (based on what my impression is)...

[Jimbo]

LOL Easy E, you are right about my posting number! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

IMO, if you don't have a problem with someone taking a particular action, then you are implicitly condoning it.

condone- to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance


Correct I do condone it, I just do not endorse it (suggest others do this) nor do it myself. I condone drug use yet I do not use drugs, I condone abortion yet will never have one since I am a male. See the difference?

You get it from anywhere else, besides playing? From playing and reading books primarily. Since I am such an old fart I am fortunate to have developed good poker habits, good card sense, an understanding of human nature and am able to compute odds quickly in my head. This being the case there are few (yet some) changes I make in my game based on what I read in these forums.

I could consider it hypocritical, given the implied spirit in which these forums are presented. Focused as they are around the 2+2 books, which purport to "teaching correct play," giving bad advice intentionally seems to violate that spirit.

You have a good point here Easy E. However I believe since you probably checkraise other players at the poker table this is a hypocritical action by nature and in some venues considered mean spirited as well.

Without reviewing all of your posts, however, I don't believe you subscribe to so self-serving a goal (based on what my impression is)...

Thanks for the compliment and you are correct insofar as my postings on this forum. At the card table or in pool my goals are nearly 100% self serving. If I were a professional poker player I would consider soliciting for business by encouraging weaker players to move up simply a good business decision and give it no moral consideration one way or the other. Yet I would never mark cards, collude nor cheat to win. I would consider these actions immoral yet convincing an inferior player that he could win simply part of the game. Am I nuts or what?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi RP:

I haven't read the other posts, but there is certainly some accuracy in what you say. Most players who try to move up fail because they don't play well enough. What happens is that they got lucky at the lower limits and thought they played pretty good when that wasn't really the case. So in the bigger game, they get destroyed.

However, I do believe that you should start small and work your way up. My book Poker Essays, Volume II has an essay on this very topic.

best wishes,

Mason

[Glenn]

You are very wrong on many accounts. How can anyone ever move up if they don't take shots at higher limits? I suppose you would say that they should not move up until they are "properly bankrolled". How can you know what a proper bankroll is without playing at the higher level for hundreds of hours and knowing your win rate with reasonable confidence? Sometimes, it is necessary to accept a -EV situation for a short period of time to learn. The first time I sat at a poker table I was -EV. Should I not have even though I've won a ton a money since? I think you are severely overestimating how -EV someone taking a shot is in limit poker. If someone wins 1BB/hr playing 3/6 and decides to play some 10/20, there is just about no way I can imagine (besides playing scared) that he is more than a 1BB/hr loser at that limit. In fact, he is likely a small winner or break even player. So his 5 hour "shot" costs him something like $50 in the long run. He sees what it is like and learns from it. He may even have fun. I don't see what is wrong with this. What about a break even 3-6 player? Well, he is apparently playing for FUN anyways, so if he would have FUN playing bigger, he should do it.

[ResidentParanoid]

Note that I didn't suggest that people should never move up. Some of your points should be part of the "standard answer" people get.

[andyfox]

I don't think anyone here "sends" a lower limit player to a higher limit game. Sometimes a player will ask what to look for as he or she moves up. I try to give my best advice, as others gave me when I was moving up, and it seems to me others here do their best to do so as well.

I have many times seen posters advise players to post some hands so that they can get some feedback to see if they are ready to move up. And I have seen posters tell other posters to move back down or to not move up.

[Fishy]

Never move up unless you have money to burn:)

[Easy E]

You have a good point here Easy E. However I believe since you probably checkraise other players at the poker table this is a hypocritical action by nature and in some venues considered mean spirited as well.
Checkraising is within the rules, an expected part of a "real" poker game and therefore not applicable. If a home game, or some local variant, did not allow checkraising, I wouldn't do it.

Thanks for the compliment and you are correct insofar as my postings on this forum. At the card table or in pool my goals are nearly 100% self serving.
As they should be.

If I were a professional poker player I would consider soliciting for business by encouraging weaker players to move up simply a good business decision and give it no moral consideration one way or the other.
What's being a pro have to do with it? Sure, you want to get the best table to play against that you can. No problem there.
However, giving them false advice, on a group dedicated to improving play, in order to accomplish this goes against my personal standards.
Signing off,
His Holiness, the Poker Pope

[Jimbo]

"Checkraising is within the rules, an expected part of a "real" poker game and therefore not applicable. If a home game, or some local variant, did not allow checkraising, I wouldn't do it."

I suppose lying in general regarding poker is within the rules as well so Caveat Emptor. Remember free advice is often worth what you pay for it. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Edited below: From 2+2 Terms and Conditions:

The 2+2 website is an online information service at the domain www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com), accessed from the Internet and operated by ConJelCo for 2+2. The 2+2 website contains specific information concerning products and services from Two Plus Two Publishing and other third parties. You understand that, except for products or services clearly identified as being supplied by 2+2 or ConJelCo, neither 2+2, ConJelCo, nor any of their affiliates operates or controls any information, products, or services on the 2+2 website in any way. You assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the 2+2 websiste. You are responsible for your own posts. It is solely your responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and usefulness of all opinions, advice, services and other information, and the quality and merchantability of all merchandise, provided through 2+2.

I am still seeking that info that says the site is dedicated to providing correct and useful information by the posters!

[ResidentParanoid]

There is nothing contractually holding anyone here to post anything in particular. My understanding of the *spirit* of the 2+2 community is that "poker truth" rises to the top. So, when some unknown suggests folding AA on the button in a family pot, Dynasty or some other respected poster goes ballistic on them. Bad advice get's very rough treatment here. That's the good thing about the board. Given the typical "I moved up and got toasted" post that appears too often, it seems that posts about moving up should get this advice: "given that I don't know you well, moving up is probably a bad move".

[Jimbo]

ResidentParanoid I can tell from your posts that you are a considerate poker player who probably has a solid game as well. If I might make a suggestion, I believe it would benefit you to move up in limits. You should do well and increase your satisfaction at the same time. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif C'mon take a shot, what have you got to lose?

[bernie]

"it seems that posts about moving up should get this advice: "given that I don't know you well, moving up is probably a bad move".

isnt this the same as saying, 'given that i dont know you well, moving up is a good move.' ?

the same type of advice your complaining about, only a different ending. staying instead of moving.

im still waiting for examples, like the others are that also are waiting for examples. and by your take, their should be many more than just one or 2.

sorry, but we dont have the money to fly out, sweat a players game for a week and evaluate whether he should move up. we can only offer a gray area response that covers a general range.

the idea is to help a player think about his game in terms of moving up. helping his decision process. not to give a definitive answer. since there's no way of justifying a definitive answer on this.

still waiting for those examples that youre conveniently ignoring the requests for. many on here, if provided with some proof, may agree with your assessment of a certain post. but youve really given nothing but blathering.

keep up the good work.

b

[Duke]

I've been a favorite in a 40-80, outplayed by 2 people in an 8-16, outclassed the field in a 30-60, and being a dog in a 15-30 game. I was also a total fish in a 3-6 home game.

It's all about game selection. Just because they're playing 100-200 doesn't mean that they're great players. There are fish at all levels. Larry Flynt hosts a game where he is the fish - but he loves poker.

Pick your spots when you move up. If you're going to take a shot, ask your higher-stakes playing friends for lines on various games/players. You won't know the field, but they will. Save yourself the money that you'd normally spend investing to learn about the opponents, and instead save it to pound your big draws and big pairs down their throats.

It's all about knowing players.

Being a winning poker player isn't about being a rock, knowing all the odds to 5 decimal places, or whatever. It's about not going on tilt, and knowing your opponent. I've seen people in a 3-6 game that can't beat it, but have the tools necessary to eventually be a great high limit player - they just need to figure out when to use those tools, and to figure out that those moves don't ever work in a 3-6 game.

Seriously. It's basically bankroll management. I'm not talking about just playing within your means. I'm talking about not dropping 50BB because your Aces got cracked, and you're unknowingly becoming a fish. It's all discipline. That's the difference between a break-even player and a huge winner in the game. Talk to some of the successful gamblers, and they're not going to tell you that you need to know all the odds. Sure it helps, but playing intelligently and not going on tilt are the primary tools of the trade.

So, if you think you're ready emotionally, and think you can actually read these players, then by all means move up. Try it. You'll make more over the long term if you can take the shots and hit once in a while. Plus you'll learn what flaws you have in your game immediately. $480 lessons stick with you more than $24 lessons.

~D

[ResidentParanoid]

"it seems that posts about moving up should get this advice: "given that I don't know you well, moving up is probably a bad move".

Isnt this the same as saying, 'given that i dont know you well, moving up is a good move.' ?



I think this may be the crux of my point. For a large majority (&gt;50%) of players moving up is hopeless (i.e. they are bound to be -EV at the higher limit game forever). So, you should know that a poster has some potential in the bigger game before sending them on, otherwise you're giving -EV advice. Would tell a player to play 97o in EP?

Now, I'm not suggesting that you do a "poker background check" on them. But an anonymous, stranger to 2+2 that asks about moving up should probably be discouraged from doing so. Isn't it clear that sending *most* players onto, say, a B&amp;M 10/20 or online 3/6 game, is setting them up for failure? If you've seen some posts from the guy and you think he has potential, then you have a basis +EV advice.

the idea is to help a player think about his game in terms of moving up. helping his decision process. not to give a definitive answer. since there's no way of justifying a definitive answer on this.

Yes, and you do this about as well as anyone.

still waiting for those examples that youre conveniently ignoring the requests for. many on here, if provided with some proof, may agree with your assessment of a certain post. but youve really given nothing but blathering.

Wanted to start looking for specifics, but haven't had the patience to sort through enough posts. Maybe this weekend. And, hey, this is the "Views and Gossip" forum. I'm allowed a little leeway here!

[ResidentParanoid]

Really? You think I have potential? I think I'll try the 20/40 game this week! Thanks for the advice!

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Or maybe not. Actually, this post was part of my roundabout way of thinking about my own "moving up" question.

[Anadrol 50]

Funny comparison... /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[ResidentParanoid]

Read this post.

Reply from pufferfish to a post by ElSapo on moving (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=255 493&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

[ResidentParanoid]

still waiting for those examples that youre conveniently ignoring the requests for. many on here, if provided with some proof, may agree with your assessment of a certain post. but youve really given nothing but blathering



Would you admit that this is *one example* of what I'm talking about? Follow the link:

Reply by pufferfish on post about moving up by El Sapo (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=255 493&amp;page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)

[DPCondit]

OK, I read it. What's the big deal? Moving up from .50 - 1.00 up to 1-2, hardly a gargantuan leap. It's not like you'll be up against a table full of Doyle Brunsons.

I guess you just think nobody should ever move up, even a move so skill-wise and monetarily meaningless as from .50-1.00 to 1-2.

Don

[Easy E]

I don't see the problem with the advice at ALL. In fact, reading one of your replies in that post makes it VERY obvious that you need a VERY LARGE CHILL PILL.

Just because YOU are living up to your alias, doesn't mean OTHERS share the same nefarious thought process as you are "implicitly" assuming.

[Easy E]

Since it doesn't prove your theory ONE IOTA....

You need to let this go, RP. You're going WAYYYYY overboard with the paranoia part

[lefty rosen]

If you go to any cardroom at even "high stakes" there are so many poor players at the 20/40+ stakes, they are called doctors, drug dealers and business owners. This paranoid view that this guy rants about is whacked out. Every weekend some doctors dump 500+ at any card room around my city, there is no need to recruit low limit players or medium limit players to a highstakes games the fish are out there it's having the net to reel them in that counts....

[bernie]

i dont see anything wrong with his response. other than the boredom line. but that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here.

puffer isnt soliciting players to help his BR. ive read many if not all of his posts, and played with him. i can tell you this isnt his intent. he isn's saying bring up your roll so you can bust out. he also states a great concept of not just jumping up a level but easing into it.

let's look at the flip side. there are upper limit players who cant beat a lower limit style game where there are many multiway pots. ever heard em say theyd lose too much in that game? i have. and they were great to have in the game when i played at a certain cardroom long ago. in this case, would you not recommend them playing in this game because of their possible skill level in inability to adjust to a game texture? sure the margin isnt as big, but it still correlates.

i think youre seeing this as too black and white. as if just because you move up, youd have to stay on that level until you bust out, then restart. and i have yet to see anything of that nature in any advice given in regards to moving up.

usually when you move up guess what? youre likely to lose at first. this can be attributed to adjusting to the game/texture/players/etc. it doesnt mean just because you lose at a level at first that you arent good enough to beat that level. you may have just started that level on a bad run.

but as another poster also said, the jump from .50-1 to 1-2 isnt a quantum leap your making it out to be.
another idea to chew on: playing at a higher limit can have the benefit of playing the lower limit better. i know when i did this my game improved when i moved back down.

what the prime denominator for moving up is whether one can afford it. a millionare wouldnt have a problem 'trying' any level, would he? if you have a BR and primary income that can sustain a learning curve, no one can tell a player definitively what their benchmark starting/moving up status should be. again, we can only make them think about their game and give some ideas to think about. this can also apply to texture of games as well as limit. as the example with the overlimit players i used to play against above.

i think you made way, way too much out of this topic than there actually is.

b

[ResidentParanoid]

I'll note again that I think this is bad advice: I'm not claiming that the poster had "nefarious" intentions.

[ResidentParanoid]

Actually, the 0.5/1 and 1/2 games on Party are quite different. In most of the 0.5/1 games, you just have to make a hand to win. In 1/2, you don't.

I think we should be more careful about the advice we give.

[ResidentParanoid]

If I have gone overboard (and I have, purposefully, to some extent) it is to make a point: Telling someone to move up when it is clearly a bad idea for them is just as wrong as telling someone to play weak cards in bad position at a tough table.

[ResidentParanoid]

Hooray! More reasoned and measured advice on moving up. Thanks bernie.

Ok, I'll let my crusade on this topic go, now that we've had a nice discussion on the topic.

My apologies if I seemed too extreme in my opinion here. Turns out that's a great way to get others to express their opinions.

[ResidentParanoid]

I'm not claiming that it's done intentionally. But intentional or not, the advice has the same impact. If the mover upper is one of these doctors/lawyers/etc., then I suppose giving them enough advice to survive a little longer is OK since they're going to move up anyway.

[ResidentParanoid]

All right, I'm done with my rant on this topic. Back to folding KQo to the UTG raise...

[bernie]

"Telling someone to move up when it is clearly a bad idea for them is just as wrong as telling someone to play weak cards in bad position at a tough table"

this is an apples and oranges argument here. since it can be proven with sims and stats how weak cards play in bad position. you do not have nearly that definitive of info on a player's skill if they want to move up to base this on. like you do with starting hands. so this argument is a moot point.

b

[Easy E]

Without knowing anything else, moving up is GOOD advice, merely based on the rake-ratio effects.

And if you never try to move up, you never do.

I haven't seen anything in your various arguments that makes me think that you have a GOOD argument for your point that "moving up advice" is bad advice; CERTAINLY not intentionally manipulative advice

Of course I agree that people thinking of moving up should take a lot more into consideration than a simple post. However, there's a Search utility on the site for a reason.

[Easy E]

Since you're making that claim about (certain posters who ask about?) moving up, you are going to have to define how you definatively tell that moving advice is bad for the person(s) in question.

[Easy E]

Put together the static info that you think we should forwarded movers to, before they move.

Post it in General Strategy for review, update it.... and we can put this issue to rest for all time, by giving the "definative" breakdown on when,how and why to move up (and move back down)

[ResidentParanoid]

I think this is a good idea. Let me see what I can distill from this thread and elsewhere...