Should I skip the 10's if I have the bankroll?

I've played a lot of limit cash games, and a fair number of limit SNG's back in the day on Paradise. Want to start playing NL SNG's.

Bankroll is not really a problem. I have thousands I've made playing cash limit games online.

Will the 10's allow me to gain experience without risking too much money?

Or will I simply develop bad habits from playing really bad players?

Would you suggest Party, PokerStars or another site for my early experience?

Thanks

[runner4life7]

I suggest party because of the fish and blind structure

I suggest playing the 10s to help learn the game and no you should no get any bad habits from playing bad players. I believe that to be a myth.

[Bigwig]

Eh, just start at the $10s. Get your feet wet again. You'll know soon enough if you can just jump up to $20 or $30.

[tigerite]

I'd say start again at the $11s too. Before having a long break from poker at the end of last year I was at the $55s (but now, to be honest I realise I was hopelessly under bankrolled to play them). Because of taking so long off I decided to start right from the lowest level again, slowly inching up the levels when I felt my bankroll was sufficient (and my play). If you're patient then you'll for sure get to the $22s and $33s (and maybe beyond) under your own steam, and it'll feel much more satisfying for it, plus make you a better player.

[Hornacek]

You don't really have to if you have faith in your game. From what you've said, you're a winning player, and have sufficient bankroll. Playing the $10s may make you too impatient because of small profits.

When I first started playing, I immediately started 2-tabling the $33s, and didn't find that big of a problem. Just play tight and aggressive (and your normal game), and you should be fine. If you're in over your head, you'll know it (I doubt it, the $33s are easily beatable), and then you can go down a level.

[tigerite]

I suppose that's true, but he's not played NL SNG's before so it might be better to at least dip his toes in the $11s first, before diving straight in. Nothing wrong with being over-bankrolled, either.. at least for me it makes me pretty much fearless, and the $$ doesn't really register, only what the proper +$EV move is each time.

[zambonidrivr]

SNG's are a LOT different than cash games. ABC poker to win you money, but you must learn that when action is folded to you on the bubble, that 72o is a prem hand! That take some time to learn.

Okay.

Is there a number of SNGs that would be considered statistically significant enough to prove me a winner at that level?

I know 10k hands of limit is considered about the minimum to show a real pattern, with some people insisting on 20k or more.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a number of SNGs that would be considered statistically significant enough to prove me a winner at that level?

[/ QUOTE ]If you're beating the game, no number of SNGs will convince this group that you are a winning player. If you're not beating the game, a couple hundred SNGs will convince them you're a losing player.

[Melchiades]

Haha.

[Melchiades]

Do not think 11's will teach you any bad habits, but playing for money that doesn't matter at all to you might. Try bringing your A game to 0.01/0.02 limit tables.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Do not think 11's will teach you any bad habits, but playing for money that doesn't matter at all to you might. Try bringing your A game to 0.01/0.02 limit tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. If $11 means nothing to you, you might get impatient. I know I would probably suck at $1 SNGs just becuase they would be so boring.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay.

Is there a number of SNGs that would be considered statistically significant enough to prove me a winner at that level?

I know 10k hands of limit is considered about the minimum to show a real pattern, with some people insisting on 20k or more.

[/ QUOTE ]
500 for a very rough idea. 1000 for a better idea. 3000-5000 for a pretty good idea. But playing that many at the $11s is probably a waste of time for you.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a number of SNGs that would be considered statistically significant enough to prove me a winner at that level?

[/ QUOTE ]

You will drive yourself insane before you build up a statistically significant sample size to prove you're a winner at the 11's. That takes 2-3k, and why waste your time doing that when you have the bankroll to play higher? A sample of a few hundred is plenty to tell if you're a winner if you're studying the transcripts, posting hands, maybe even running them through SNGPT. I think you should start with a few hundred 11's, then if things go well and you've learned the basic differences between cash game play and STT's, move up.

Update:

Played some $11 SNGs on Pokerroom last night, and was suprised by how well I did.

Action got crazy after a while, as I was in the money on 3 tables at same time. (including a PL Omaha SNG I joined by accident and ended up winning).

Finished up $51 for the night, after paying $22 to join a MTT and busting out on some idiotic hand.

7 SNG's:
2 1st place (one of them PL Omaha)
1 2nd
1 3rd (accidentally joined a limit instead of NL)

Other 4 7th or lower

Plus, it was the most fun I've had playing in a while.

Guess I'll put some money back into Party and play there for a bit.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif