100 NL 6max vs. 50 NL 6max

[timmah27]

Sorry if this has been covered in other posts but nothing came up under the search function.

I'm contemplating moving up 4 tabling the 50nl 6max to the 100nl 6max. Currently over 10k hands i'm beating the 50nl for about 9ptbb/100. The 50nl seems pretty basic and really ABC poker seems to make a good deal of money. What are the main differences between the 50 and 100? In my limited experience with the 100 the only difference i see is an increased prevalence of wanna be LAGs. I'm properly bankrolled for both games so tell me some reasons why I should move up.

[Malachii]

In my experience $50 NL is much easier. $100NL 6max is tighter and finding good games can be tough. $50 NL 6max players are very easy to bully.

I agree with the above. I took a few shots at 100NL and did really well, so I moved up for a while. I took a turn for the worse at about 3000 hands. I found myself getting caught trying to buy pots and not being able to get away from big hands, so I tilted away a lot of money. I started to be one of those guys that I love to play against. Another huge factor is that the 100NL players don't seem to pay you off nearly as much on your big hands. That was the problem, I was losing a lot on my second best hands, and not winning much on my best hands.

Bottom line, 100NL is worth a shot, but you're going to have to play consistent good poker. When I moved up, I was beating 50NL for ~15PTBB/100 over about 10K hands, FWIW. Be ready and willing to admit to yourself that you might be out of your league and maybe you have more to learn still. That was the tough part for me, because I overvalued my short-term initial results.

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
In my limited experience with the 100 the only difference i see is an increased prevalence of wanna be LAGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That must be me you saw. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

If you play TAG, you can beat 100 as well except that you might win more at 50s. For example if you win 9ptbb at 50s, I am not surprised if you could only win 5ptbb at 100s simply because people don't pay you off like 50s. Also I find there is more raising pf at 100s as well. When I first play 100NL, I am running at VPIP like 13/2. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Isura]

Try playing less tables. The 100nl is not hard, you just need to pay more attention and take better notes.

[4_2_it]

Just do what our jedi master Fimbulwinter says here....... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=ssplnlpoker&Number=324062 3&fpart=&PHPSESSID=)

[2PAUL2]

[ QUOTE ]
$100NL 6max is tighter and finding good games can be tough

[/ QUOTE ]

eh i play alot during off peak times being from the uk and i can always find plenty of good games.

[ QUOTE ]
Another huge factor is that the 100NL players don't seem to pay you off nearly as much on your big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

again eh. 100nl 6maxers are huge payoff machines. they simply refuse to ever believe u have a hand. i get looked up with the most rediculous holdings all the time.

to op if you have the bankroll move up. 2 table for a little bit to get used to the increased aggression and you will be fine.

paul

[teamdonkey]

the quality of play goes up, but not tremendously. Play is a little tighter and more aggressive, the good players are a little better, there aren't as many bad players, the bad players are still just as bad. Since this is the first limit you can realistically make a living wage at, you will occasionally run into a player that isn't just good, but very good.

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
Since this is the first limit you can realistically make a living wage at, you will occasionally run into a player that isn't just good, but very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current living wage estimation nation wide is $14 an hour /images/graemlins/shocked.gif. Yeah Labor History 100

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The current living wage estimation nation wide is $14 an hour

[/ QUOTE ]

assuming you're working 40 hrs a week, which poker players dont /images/graemlins/wink.gif. Not a point i want to argue about, i just think noone is playing poker professionally at the 50NL level, while there are a few out there at 100NL.

[scrapperdog]

Since when did he say anything about playing professional?

[teamdonkey]

he didn't, i did. I said one of the differences between 100NL and 50NL is that at the higher stakes you'll every once in a while run into a player who is very good, this may be because playing professionally at 100NL is possible while at 50NL it probably isn't.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
he didn't, i did. I said one of the differences between 100NL and 50NL is that at the higher stakes you'll every once in a while run into a player who is very good, this may be because playing professionally at 100NL is possible while at 50NL it probably isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's possible to play NL50 professionally, it's possible to play NL100 professionally, but nobody who treats poker as a "full-time job" is going to play either of them for very long.

a good player can easily make 30+/hr multitabling NL50, i'd consider that a decent wage. of course, if you're good enough to do that you aren't staying at NL50 for very long if you put a significant part of your winnings into building your bankroll as any reasonable pro would.

there are probably a lot of part-time "pro" college students playing 100 NL (who may be as good or better as people making a "real" living), but basically zero full time pros who arent students.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
For example if you win 9ptbb at 50s, I am not surprised if you could only win 5ptbb at 100s simply because people don't pay you off like 50s.

[/ QUOTE ]

does anyone else think this is just plain wrong? i would be VERY surprised if someone won 9BB/100 for 50k hands at NL50 and then won 5BB/100 for another 50k at NL100 while playing "just as well."

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example if you win 9ptbb at 50s, I am not surprised if you could only win 5ptbb at 100s simply because people don't pay you off like 50s.

[/ QUOTE ]

does anyone else think this is just plain wrong? i would be VERY surprised if someone won 9BB/100 for 50k hands at NL50 and then won 5BB/100 for another 50k at NL100 while playing "just as well."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just base on my observation that while alot of people could sustain winrate >10ptbb/100 at 50 level, not a lot of people could do so at 100 Level.

Also I did not take into account that you gain exp after 50k hands.

I could be off here.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
but basically zero full time pros who arent students.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong

[timmah27]

In my limited experience at the 100NL i noticed that i get paid off more on hands like top pair top kicker, especially if i've been playing pretty aggressive at the table for a while. Guys seem to look you more with middle pair than they would at 50NL. At 50 though it seems like people will go broke with top pair and medium to good kicker. Its like they can't fathom that two pair, a set, or an overpair are possible. Didn't really see this same chip spewage at 100NL.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example if you win 9ptbb at 50s, I am not surprised if you could only win 5ptbb at 100s simply because people don't pay you off like 50s.

[/ QUOTE ]

does anyone else think this is just plain wrong? i would be VERY surprised if someone won 9BB/100 for 50k hands at NL50 and then won 5BB/100 for another 50k at NL100 while playing "just as well."

[/ QUOTE ]

I found the 100NL to be just about the same as 50NL. If fact, my winrate increased a little (i know small sample--shut it!).

Even if the players to play slightly better, which I do not think they do, the amount of experience you gain from 10-20K hands that you might play at 50NL should at least level the playing field.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but basically zero full time pros who arent students.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

and they havent moved up because...?

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but basically zero full time pros who arent students.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

and they havent moved up because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

to me, moving up when poker is your sole source of income seems like the scariest thing imaginable. Especially if you went pro at the low end of the spectrum (100NL) and you need every penny to pay the bills. Maybe not the smartest long term decision, but professional poker probably isn't either.

Just playing devil's advocate here... I haven't seen anyone at 100NL that i could point at and say "that guy is definately doing this to pay the rent". But i HAVE seen a couple guys that could, and for all i know might be doing just that.

[Mathemagician]

It has been my experience that 50NL is a tougher game than 100NL. Take that for what it's worth, as it is based on feel and observation. I don't have enough hands at 50NL to make it statistically valid.

M

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been my experience that 50NL is a tougher game than 100NL. Take that for what it's worth, as it is based on feel and observation. I don't have enough hands at 50NL to make it statistically valid.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah you're probably looking at a sample size issue. most people have more success in bb/hand at nl50. but they're close enough that results like yours arent all that rare.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but basically zero full time pros who arent students.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

and they havent moved up because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

to me, moving up when poker is your sole source of income seems like the scariest thing imaginable. Especially if you went pro at the low end of the spectrum (100NL) and you need every penny to pay the bills. Maybe not the smartest long term decision, but professional poker probably isn't either.

Just playing devil's advocate here... I haven't seen anyone at 100NL that i could point at and say "that guy is definately doing this to pay the rent". But i HAVE seen a couple guys that could, and for all i know might be doing just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they need every penny to pay the rent, they need to play more hands/week, period. then when they move up they can play less hands and make more money.

anyone smart enough to make a living is going to be smart enough to build a bankroll when moving up even one level (from 100 to 200) can drastically improve their $/hr.

[Go_Blue88]

In terms of making the most money per week I find that NL 50 is far easier than NL25 and NL200 is far easier than NL100. Aside from obvious reasoning, this is because people are looser at NL200 and NL50. NL 50 is comparable to NL100 IMO just with bigger stacks.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of making the most money per week I find that NL 50 is far easier than NL25 and NL200 is far easier than NL100. Aside from obvious reasoning, this is because people are looser at NL200 and NL50. NL 50 is comparable to NL100 IMO just with bigger stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty much true. putting money in your bankroll if youre a winning player is one of the best investments you can possibly make.

[snowbank]

In terms of making the most money per week I find that NL 50 is far easier than NL25 and NL200 is far easier than NL100. Aside from obvious reasoning, this is because people are looser at NL200 and NL50. NL 50 is comparable to NL100 IMO just with bigger stacks.

So you are actually saying that you think $200NL is easier than $50NL?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of making the most money per week I find that NL 50 is far easier than NL25 and NL200 is far easier than NL100. Aside from obvious reasoning, this is because people are looser at NL200 and NL50. NL 50 is comparable to NL100 IMO just with bigger stacks.

So you are actually saying that you think $200NL is easier than $50NL?

[/ QUOTE ]

he's saying that if he wanted to make $X per week, it would take him less time on average if he played $200NL than if he played $50NL.

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of making the most money per week I find that NL 50 is far easier than NL25 and NL200 is far easier than NL100. Aside from obvious reasoning, this is because people are looser at NL200 and NL50. NL 50 is comparable to NL100 IMO just with bigger stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's quite interesting observation although pretty bold. What's your sample size? I do think 100s is a lot tighter these days for my taste.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
and they havent moved up because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

bankroll requirements?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and they havent moved up because...?

[/ QUOTE ]

bankroll requirements?

[/ QUOTE ]

ok well like i said if theyve been there longer than a couple weeks they need to either find a way spend less or play more, because the opportunity cost of staying at nl100 vs moving up is huge. i expect a pro to know this, which is why i expect very few pros at nl100, and virtually zero who are there long-term.

Still one of the best things I've read on here.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
ok well like i said if theyve been there longer than a couple weeks they need to either find a way spend less or play more, because the opportunity cost of staying at nl100 vs moving up is huge. i expect a pro to know this, which is why i expect very few pros at nl100, and virtually zero who are there long-term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certianly most are not there for the long term, but I started out at NL50 when I was playing as my only source of income and next month will be at NL 200, but I will make 5-6K this month through profit&rakeback playing almost exclusively at NL100.

[Sephus]

you are a freak.