Anyone ever successfully skipped a limit?

[jdock99]

I played a lot of 5/10 SH, did very well. Then I moved up to 10/20 SH for about 35,000 hands. I have been beating the game, but at a much lower rate so that it definitely is a pay decrease. I have been experimenting at 15-30 full and SH and have been running pretty well (over a short # of hands) and am thinking of just givng up on 10-20 SH altogether. I think maybe the dynamics of the 10-20 game do not fit my playing style well.

Have any of u ever just skipped a level because, for whatever reason, ur results werent up to par, and then done fine at the next level. Just wondering.

[tongni]

Don't skip 10/20, whatever you do. Other limits are alright to skip, I went from 10/20 to 20/40, but 10/20 6m is probably the most important limit for a developing player to beat, especially if you ever plan on playing anything above 30/60, but even if you don't you still should.

[ QUOTE ]
I have been experimenting at 15-30 full and SH and have been running pretty well (over a short # of hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance.

[ QUOTE ]
Then I moved up to 10/20 SH for about 35,000 hands. I have been beating the game, but at a much lower rate so that it definitely is a pay decrease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality.

Most learning is empyrical. Unless you're a natural born poker genius I don't see any reason for a person to want to do this other than good old fasioned sloth.

[jdock99]

Actually, there is another very good reason, $$.

As it stands right now for me my comparative $$/hr at various stakes are 15/30 (10,000 hands) > 5/10 (100,000+ hands > 10/20 (35,000 hands), which leads to the conclusion that maybe I would be better served to move past 10/20 w/o establishing a strong, winrate there and move to 15/30.

[DeezNutz3]

[ QUOTE ]
I played a lot of 5/10 SH, did very well. Then I moved up to 10/20 SH for about 35,000 hands. I have been beating the game, but at a much lower rate so that it definitely is a pay decrease. I have been experimenting at 15-30 full and SH and have been running pretty well (over a short # of hands) and am thinking of just givng up on 10-20 SH altogether. I think maybe the dynamics of the 10-20 game do not fit my playing style well.

Have any of u ever just skipped a level because, for whatever reason, ur results werent up to par, and then done fine at the next level. Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made the move a while ago when the games were much different but i did very well at 5/10 6 max starting 2 years ago and moved to 15/30 fulls which were excellent with out playing very many hands at 10/20 6 max. I think that as it stands now I would rather go through the 10/20 games as going from 5/10 to 15/30 can be tough mentally to handle for just one example.

Good Luck.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there is another very good reason, $$.

As it stands right now for me my comparative $$/hr at various stakes are 15/30 (10,000 hands) > 5/10 (100,000+ hands > 10/20 (35,000 hands), which leads to the conclusion that maybe I would be better served to move past 10/20 w/o establishing a strong, winrate there and move to 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you or do you not understand that 10k hands is meaningless? I play 10k hands in 3 days.

[ggbman]

i think kurosh went from 10-20 to 150-300

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there is another very good reason, $$.

As it stands right now for me my comparative $$/hr at various stakes are 15/30 (10,000 hands) > 5/10 (100,000+ hands > 10/20 (35,000 hands), which leads to the conclusion that maybe I would be better served to move past 10/20 w/o establishing a strong, winrate there and move to 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the words in bold.

Which of the following does not belong?:

10,000 hands
35,000 hands
conclusion

[ QUOTE ]
i think kurosh went from 10-20 to 150-300

[/ QUOTE ]

heh (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3904878&an=&page=0&v c=1)

[jdock99]

You forgot one word:
maybe

Obviously, if I was confident that my win rate was accurate I would have already made the move to 15/30 and not have bothered writing the thread in the first place. Of course I realize this is a small sample size and I theoretically could actually be a big winner at 10-20 and a loser at 5-10 and 15-30.

That being said, I do not play 10,000 hands every 3 days, as poker is not my profession or even high on my list of preferrential hobbies. And so, I might have to make decisions about my play, such as when to move up or down in limits, w/o having 100% accurate statistical evidence to support those decisions.

The whole point of the thread was to ask other's opinions about 'skipping' a limit, specifically 10-20 6 max, and whether or not it worked out for them, NOT to ask if I had a statistically high enough sample size for my win rates to be 100% accurate. For those of you that realized this and responded constructively "Thank you very much."

It seems like all you want to hear is that you can skip ahead to 15/30.

So I will tell you. Yes, it's allright. Report back with results later.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think kurosh went from 10-20 to 150-300

[/ QUOTE ]

heh (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3904878&an=&page=0&v c=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

ouch

As tongni said, learning to play 10-20 6 max is crucial if you'd like to ever play above 30-60. It's probably most players first real introduction to playing against opponents that can occassionally be extremely aggressive and this kind of aggression is usually common at the higher limits.

[imitation]

Do you ask your gf what shirt you should wear, don't be a pansy, make your own decisions.

[jdock99]

Actually, a negative answer would be completely reasonable and even expected.

However, I would appreciate a coherent, thought out explanation, like

"I tried something similar and felt I was being outplayed and would not recommend it"

or

"I would not recommend such a move because I think 10-20 6-max is an important limit in learning how to handle unpredictable aggression"

not

"Sample size too small. Report back with a graph after 1.5 million hands."

It almost seems in this forum as the "sample size is too small" argument has become a replacement for actual analytical thought.

Yes, the sample size in my original post (and 99% of all other posts) is too small, and yes we are all aware of that. Now lets move beyond this apparency and try to contribute something useful.

[imitation]

read my post, it contains a valuable life lesson.

[jdock99]

Thank you for wasting 15 seconds of my life directing me to that useless post (and the 30 seconds it is taking me to write this reply). Now I have to go do something highly productive to make up for it.

[baronzeus]

i wouldnt do it. i got in at LEAST 15K hands at each limit.

[ QUOTE ]
i wouldnt do it. i got in at LEAST 15K hands at each limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size too small. Are you sure you're beating 10/20?

[TStoneMBD]

i skipped 10/20 cause i started off on a 100BBish downswing and just said the hell with it. worked out well for me but i wouldnt recommend that you do that. your hand sizes mean nothing.

[Wynton]

Forget these naysayers: I actually skipped several levels once.

Started out in playmoney, and skipped all the way to .25/.50. And I handled the move with aplomb.