Opinions on skipping the 30's and moving to 50's

[ZeroPointMachine]

I've been killing the 20's(45% ITM & 34%ROI for 300 games) and have increased my BR to about 3K. No doubt I've been running pretty well. The last 50 have been a monster heater.

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's. I don't want to struggle at the 30's if I would be making more at the 50's. I work 9-5 and play 3-4 sets(4 table) per night and 8-10 Sat and Sun.

I know this may be a well worn topic, but the SNG environment is pretty fluid IMO and I would like to hear from those that are making(or have recently made) the transition from 20-30-50.

Thanks again to all the great posters on this forum. Your help has been tremendous.
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Slim Pickens]

I'm in the 20-->30-->50 mode now. Here's what I've experienced so far. Over my limited sample (92 33's, 484 22's) I've seen at least as much awful play at the 33's as the 22's, and the HU play (where you can really figure out if your opponent has at least 1/4 of a clue) is usually decent, and a big step above what it is at the 11's. I think the advice to skip the 33's is bad because it only slows your bankroll-building to the 55's. After moving to the 33's, I see no reason why someone should be able to consistenly and thoroughly beat the 22's, yet "struggle" at the 33's.

SlimP

[citanul]

there's been a lot of talk on moving up lately and how to do it and when to do it, etc.

one thing that could summarize a lot of the help/suggestions, of at least one school of thought:

you can always take shots at stakes higher than your current one, or just move around and up in stakes whenever you want, as long as you are disciplined in moving down when it is necessary. ie: don't play outside of your bankroll it is a good way to lose it.

citanul

[ZeroPointMachine]

Thanks for the input.

I think my bankroll variance tolerance is more suited to $132 dollar sets than it is to $220 sets right now. But I didn't want to miss getting to the 50's by falling into some pit at the 30's. An earlie poster referred to the 30's as suicidal(no opinion on poster)

At the same time what I'm doing now is working great, but I feel my interest/attention slipping just a little and every so often blow off a hand or table or set...

I know 50's would get my attention.

[Slim Pickens]

Here's the thing: since the jump from the 22's to the 33's represents the smallest fractional difference in buy-in available between two levels, it is the one most likely to be subject to "I lost $x at the 33's and made back >$x at the 22's in about the same number of games, so the 22's must be easier." evaluations due entirely to variance. I've swapped HH's with one of the two posters who've advocating skipping the 33's, so I know he's a solid player, but I think he's wrong about this one. Of coure, it helps to have a brand-spanking-new turbo-charged Raptor5000 series luckbox arrive just as you're making that jump to the 55's. Mine's on backorder.

I moved up to the 33's by mixing in a single-table 33 every onece in a while after finishing 4-tabling 22's for the night, and I plan to do the same with an occasional 55 now that my bankroll supports me full-timing the 33's.

[Big Limpin']

Why dont you play 100 33s and 100 55s. But do em together. Like, a quad of 33s, then a quad of 55s, back and forth.
True, 100 isnt enought to "know" how you can do, exactly, but it should be enough to give you a gut-feeling about where you stand, and whether you are likely to profit more at a higher level.

[johnnybeef]

You are Br'd for the 55s (assuming that you are a winning player there), but I still recommend playing at least 100 or so 33s. The reason for this is because there are little nuances to be learned at every level. That being said, the difference in difficulty between the two levels can be seen by the strength/weakness of the opposition at the two levels. At the 33s, there are many more players who are terrible at all aspects of a sng. At the 55s, you will find more players who know to play tight early, but, suck when it gets to <6 players. When you add in the extra t200, someone who is a late game expert may do better at the 55s, although it is not a guarantee.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

Recently there have been some posts indicating that the 50's are easier than the 30's.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those people are mistaken.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't want to struggle at the 30's if I would be making more at the 50's. I work 9-5 and play 3-4 sets(4 table) per night and 8-10 Sat and Sun.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you struggle at the 33s you will struggle *even more* at the 55s....so if struggling will be difficult for you to deal with, then this is even more reason not to jump to the 55s.

Play whatever you want to play as long as you're willing to adjust to different levels. The 55s are certainly beatable but you will have to actively extract chips (as opposed to more passive extraction in the 22s) in order to do really well. This applies to the 33s as well but those extra 200 chips make active chip extraction even more important.

If your main reason for skipping the 33s is b/c you have heard the 55s are easier...then I advise you to not skip the 33s.

Yugoslav

[pergesu]

curtains and citanul say play the 33s. gildonk says to skip em.

You choose whose advice to take [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[valenzuela]

My honest advice:
If u want to play the 55s, play them. Somehow many posters think that money is the only reason we all play, if you will be a happier human being playing the 55s play the 55s, if you will be a happier human being playing the 33s , play the 33s.