Want to learn NL, how deep should I start?

[mantasm]

Hey guys, I've been playing shorthanded 10/20 limit games for a while now. I want to start learning no limit ring games. I have a couple of questions:

Does 2/4 or 3/6 sound about right to start out?

Should I start out with 100BB or play shorter while I'm learning? If so, how short.


Thanks.

[unlucky513]

SEARCH!!!

also you could probably find the answers to your questions (which have been asked 4 billion times) in the FAQ.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys, I've been playing shorthanded 10/20 limit games for a while now. I want to start learning no limit ring games. I have a couple of questions:

Does 2/4 or 3/6 sound about right to start out?

Should I start out with 100BB or play shorter while I'm learning? If so, how short.


Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. 2/4 or 3/6 does not sound right. Figure out what you want your NL bankroll to be say $1000, and start at $.10/.25 or $.25/.50. Move up and down as your bankroll allows for 10,000 hands or so. These stakes may seem boring to limit $10/20 player, but you have got to give yourself time to learn in a more forgiving environment. If you are crushing these games after 10,000 hands, you could re-invest in your bankroll and move up to NL100, NL200, or NL400. Be careful, however, that your foundation and principles in NL are very solid before moving up to these levels.

Disclaimer: my bankroll is $500 which I've worked up from $100 over this past year. My advice may be weak tight. It also may not be weak tight at all.

[mantasm]

Do you think starting at the lower limits with 100BB would be better than starting out playing short at the middle limits? In terms of profit right now and to help me learn.

What do you think would be a good buyin for the middle limits? Bankroll isn't really a concern.

Thanks.

[scrapperdog]

Honestly this is a whole new game and I would advise to start small. I dont know how much NL experience you have but if it is not a lot then the 100$ buy in games will be a place to start. You probably are gonna lose for a little while until the adjustments are made.. might as well do it at the 100$ buy in tables instead of the 600$ ones. I would not go lower than 100$ though, going lower might actually hurt more than help cause of the nonsensical play there.

[scrapperdog]

IMO you should never buy in short. There are times that somoeone is gonna give you action when you flopped a set of kings against a smaller set .... and you will be kicking yourself that you did not take all his money because you bought in short.

[mosuavea]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you should never buy in short. There are times that somoeone is gonna give you action when you flopped a set of kings against a smaller set .... and you will be kicking yourself that you did not take all his money because you bought in short.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the times where he will over play his TPTK or an overpair on a rag board and lose his stack while learning? I think there are pros and cons of buying in short but when learning, just trying to point out the action isnt always good and there are advantages to buyin short especially early on.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO you should never buy in short. There are times that somoeone is gonna give you action when you flopped a set of kings against a smaller set .... and you will be kicking yourself that you did not take all his money because you bought in short.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the times where he will over play his TPTK or an overpair on a rag board and lose his stack while learning? I think there are pros and cons of buying in short but when learning, just trying to point out the action isnt always good and there are advantages to buyin short especially early on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you buy in short you are limiting your exposure, thus not dealing with the pressure of possibly losing 100BB, or the pressure of large bets that are not part of limit holdem. Possibly losing 100BB in a hand is part of the game and something that needs to be learned. Best do it at a small table though. I agree there are pros and cons on both sides. I see a short buy in as a crutch that needs to be gotten rid of pretty quickly in order to progress in your game. Glad to see everyone agrees 2/4 or 3/6 is too high to start, even with a large bankroll.

[soah]

I assume you want to play 6-max? I'd buy in full at the NL25 or NL50 games to start. The players at those levels are so passive and love to slowplay so much that you're not going to face a lot of tough decisions for your stack... sometimes those games feel almost like playing limit because half the players never bet more than the minimum. You don't need to spend long playing those games; anyone with solid fundamentals should easily beat the games. But it's nice to get your feet wet in the kiddy pool while you figure things out. If things are going well over 500-1000 hands you can move up.

Jumping into the 2/4 or 3/6 games would almost certainly be a mistake. There are plenty of players there that are just waiting to take pots away from you, and if you are not familiar with NL you may have a difficult time interpretting their bets correctly while also giving away information about your own hand. If you really insist on jumping into these games I'd buy in for perhaps 40bb and just play solid preflop/flop poker. With this strategy you will not have to worry much about letting go of TPTK or overpairs, and you can observe the other deep stacks playing against each other to develop your hand reading before you end up in those spots yourself.

[4_2_it]

In defining your NL bankroll think in terms of buy-ins, not bb. Conventional wisdom around here is 20-25 buy-ins for level. I have experienced a variance of 12-15 buyins so you should make sure you are sufficiently rolled for whatever level you play.

If you were consistently beating the 10/20 games you should be able to handle NL $100. However, I would recommend that you start in the 25's or 50's to get comfortable with how the donks play so you can recognize and exploit it at the higher levels. Some players at the 200's (and I assume above) are good at looking like a donk as they are roping you in.

Read the FAQ sticky and look for posts that have responses from our resident experts (TheWorstPlayer, Ghazban, Amoeba, Subzero, Xorbie, AJMargaine). (Sorry if I left anyone out.) Edit -- add Isura to experts list (sorry dude)

[gulebjorn]

I'd buy in for the max at NL 50. Unless you have like $3000 you wanna invest in this project. Then NL$100 would be fine. Remember that losing 2 or 3 buyins in one session is not uncommon, even for a very good player.

Just remember that you need at least 20 buyins in your NL bankroll for any given level and you'll be fine.

Oh, and two more things: fold or raise. Make pot sized bets.

Good luck at the tables.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]

fold or raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to post this on my monitor.

I agree with the others that 2/4 and 3/6 might be too advanced if you're just starting online NL.
That being said, don't play so small that you get bored...you'll play badly if you do.
NL $25 (.10/.25) holds my interest but if that's too cheap you could go $50 (.25/.50) or $100 (.50/$1). I think you shouldn't jump past $100 until you can consistently beat it though.

One more thing...the flop continuation bet is your friend.
Good luck!

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys, I've been playing shorthanded 10/20 limit games for a while now. I want to start learning no limit ring games. I have a couple of questions:

Does 2/4 or 3/6 sound about right to start out?

Should I start out with 100BB or play shorter while I'm learning? If so, how short.


Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. 2/4 or 3/6 does not sound right. Figure out what you want your NL bankroll to be say $1000, and start at $.10/.25 or $.25/.50. Move up and down as your bankroll allows for 10,000 hands or so. These stakes may seem boring to limit $10/20 player, but you have got to give yourself time to learn in a more forgiving environment. If you are crushing these games after 10,000 hands, you could re-invest in your bankroll and move up to NL100, NL200, or NL400. Be careful, however, that your foundation and principles in NL are very solid before moving up to these levels.

Disclaimer: my bankroll is $500 which I've worked up from $100 over this past year. My advice may be weak tight. It also may not be weak tight at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a bad approach for a winning 10/20 limit player. To the OP, the recommended bankroll is around 20 buyins. I don't think it is wise to start at anything lower than the $100 buyin game. If you can afford it, I would think 1/2 would be a good start. You might lose more in the short term, but think in terms of long-term profitabilty. I think starting too low will slow down your learning and may cause you to get bored.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

fold or raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to post this on my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't there plenty of situations where calling is the correct play? I've heard this advice plenty of times and I don't really get it. This advice makes sense to me preflop in late position when its folded to me, but other than this, when is it a hard, fast rule?

I like calling too. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[soah]

I call a lot.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

fold or raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to post this on my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't there plenty of situations where calling is the correct play? I've heard this advice plenty of times and I don't really get it. This advice makes sense to me preflop in late position when its folded to me, but other than this, when is it a hard, fast rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to hijack the post but a common error made by NL players (myself included) is calling bets with a good, but not great hand. We should be raising to steal or folding and picking a better spot. Calling is often synonymous with chip spewing. Many times it is cheaper to raise and fold to a reraise than make two calls.

The advice is not meant to be a hard and fast rule for every situation, but more an overall concept of aggression that falls along the lines of something like "if you can't raise you should probably fold."

I am sure someone smarter than me will be able to elaborate this better.

edit -- of course there are plenty of situations you should call, it is more of a mindset than anything else.

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

fold or raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to post this on my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't there plenty of situations where calling is the correct play? I've heard this advice plenty of times and I don't really get it. This advice makes sense to me preflop in late position when its folded to me, but other than this, when is it a hard, fast rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the OP has plenty of poker experience, I was assuming that he knows there are no absolutes in poker, and that I was talking about a general attitude towards the game.

[soah]

Can you address the points I made here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3652601&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)?

I hate people who play like you.

I really hated them in limit too, heh.

The only way to counterbalance this is to start checking more. Vs habitual callers I'll check behind on the flop more often instead of making a continuation bet, or if I'm out of position I'll bet the flop and checkraise the turn. This isn't actually so bad since if I raise preflop I'm going to see 4 cards for my initial raise most of the time if you don't start betting out on the flop. But like you said, you'll check behind sometimes as well when I'm oop and go for a checkraise, with or without a hand. Still, this is the only way I know of to combat this.

BTW, assuming you're a 2 BB/100 winner at 10/20 limit...

1/2 is a donk fest. There aren't many TAGs playing an optimal style. They're usually either too tight or a little too aggressive and go to far with one pair/overpair hands. The mediocre to bad players are absolutely horrible, and this is coming from someone who is just playing UB/Stars.

Still, I don't think you should start at 2/4 NL considering this game plays equal to or bigger than 10/20 limit.

I'd start at 1/2 and get your education there.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you address the points I made here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3652601&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoyed that discussion and didn't partake because my play is probably more aligned with yours than with a true TAGs. I think you still have the "aggressive" attitude, you just exhibit your aggression a little differently.

I think the "fold or raise" mantra is to help players (like me), who tend to become calling stations, take a better mental approach to the game.

I will add that I think your style will probably have a lower variance because you are not probing and raising at every opportunity. You appear willing to forgo some EV in order to get a better read on the action and/or control a pot (which is probably a good thing in many situations). You probably do not win as much as you could in your winning sessions, but I would think you save much more on your losses in your losing sessions, so this is probably also a plus. I can't see any 'fundamental' flaws in your approach and I can see how a good player could do well using it.

It appears you play at the 400 level which is different from the 100 and 200 levels I am familiar with so that could also cause us to perceive our opponents differently.

[JaBlue]

You should be fine at .50-1.00 or 1-2

[mantasm]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I'll probably start at one of the lower limits and move up as quickly as I feel comfortable.

[rikz]

Buy-in for the full amount at a limit where you are comfortable losing 10-20 max buy-ins in a week without worrying about anything other than "What are the leaks in my game that are causing me to lose so much?" Odds are that you probably will do fine and not actually lose so much. It's more likely you'll play 20K hands and ask, "Why am I only winning X BB/100 hands instead of doing better...?"

I wouldn't buy-in for less than the full amount because your game plan changes quite a bit if you're playing short-stacked. Since you're trying to learn how to play NL, get in and play on all streets - not just preflop and flop (which is pretty much it for a short stack).

[primate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO you should never buy in short. There are times that somoeone is gonna give you action when you flopped a set of kings against a smaller set .... and you will be kicking yourself that you did not take all his money because you bought in short.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the times where he will over play his TPTK or an overpair on a rag board and lose his stack while learning? I think there are pros and cons of buying in short but when learning, just trying to point out the action isnt always good and there are advantages to buyin short especially early on.

[/ QUOTE ]

TPTK is the NL rookie's downfall. Learn this quick TPTK is bugger all and Top 2 isn't that much better! Am I playing too tight? Or did I just get stacked too often when I was starting out!

You start small but what is small for you might not be small for others.

[HtotheNootch]

I'm just getting into playing NL cash games. I've started out buying in with a shortstack, and then staying in the game if I happen to double/triple/quadruple up. This way I get my deep stack experience with a much smaller risk of ruin.

[yvesaint]

start at 0.5/1 or 1/2, depending on your bankroll

i dont think you need to start at any lower than that, especially if you have a strong short-handed limit background

[mason55]

A good 10/20 Limit player should be able to easily play the 1/2. You will drop a few buy-ins. You will learn a lot more, a lot more quickly. Post lots of hands, or even better, find someone who plays well and discuss hands with them. Maybe find a limit buddy who wants to learn NL so you guys can learn together. It will help because you can talk about things in terms of limit and discuss how they compare in no limit. I think having someone who plays the same game as you do currently would be really helpful. I know this is what James and DcifrThs did (they jumped right into the 2k NL games though /images/graemlins/shocked.gif)

[Bukem_]

Some of this advice is so weak. The guy plays 10/20 6 max, starting at micro limits games isn't going to teach him to play the games he wants to, infact its more likely to teach him bad habits.

If you can beat 10/20 6 max, you can at the very least start at 1/2 6max. I'd recommend 2/4 or 3/6 full ring though. Buy in full. Play super tight in EP.

I'd recommend playing live for nl before internet though.

If you can't do that at least watch some Live at the BIke games.

Edit: It's not a horrible idea to play a few hands at a lower level just to get the feel of it at first.

[soah]

All I can say is that when I tried to switch from NL to limit, I got spanked hard at 1/2 6-max for several thousand hands before I figured out what to do. The games were absurdly soft but I did not adjust properly to them at first. Had I tried to jump in at 5/10 or so I'm sure it would have been a complete disaster. I'm sure some people can make the transition between various games better than others can, but I simply don't see much of any downside to starting at the very lowest limits and then moving up quickly until the proper level is found.

It would be pretty simple to start at the bottom at decide that you will win two buy-ins at each level before moving up, and if you start losing, you'll move back down again.

[BlackRain]

I would recommend starting at the .5/1 NL game. It is the gateway game between the lower and higher limits. Enough terrible play to give you a taste of the lower limits and a few conscious players, giving you a taste of what goes on in bigger games.