Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

You sat out the first 2 levels?

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

This is what I do 90% of the time anyways.

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

This is only interesting if you divide it by buy-in levels, and see where the dropoff occurs. I am guessing the answer is clearly yes at the lower buy-ins, gets close around the $55's, and starts to lean towards no at the $109's.

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

The drop off has been noted many times to be the 109s.
Making money at the 55s sitting out the first 2 levels should be fairly easy, especially if you practice good table selection.

At the 109s with good table and seat selection I think you could, but my guess is pure guess. I have not played enough 109s to be an authority.

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

[ QUOTE ]
especially if you practice good table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hear people saying this sometimes. How is it possible to practice table selection? The only thing I can think of is the time of day you play. Otherwise it's random who sits at your table.

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

Sit down after your opponents, not before them

Lori

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

I think this idea of sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev. At the beginning of hand 1, the worst players and the best players all have the same number of chips. At the end of hand 20, there is a very good chance that a bad player has given away all of his chips, I want to give myself every chance to get those chips.
Even if you could be a winning player while sitting out level 1 and 2, why would you even consider it?

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think this idea of sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev. At the beginning of hand 1, the worst players and the best players all have the same number of chips. At the end of hand 20, there is a very good chance that a bad player has given away all of his chips, I want to give myself every chance to get those chips.
Even if you could be a winning player while sitting out level 1 and 2, why would you even consider it?

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you consider it? to maximize the number of tables played. at the lower buyins, your skill advantage doesnt stem as much from early level play as much as it does from playing when the blinds get bigger. you can add more tables instead of playing hands early.. it makes your $/hr shoot way up. who cares about roi. $/hr is all that matters.

if you are playing a 109+, then obv sitting out the first 2 levels is very -ev, and may make you a losing player. in fact, it more than likely would. in the 109s and 215s, you can pick up a lot of chips just being aggressive in the first couple levels. to not have that ability is very very bad. in the 22s and such, the first couple levels are useless to me. holla

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

point taken, but how many people does this really apply to? If you aren't 20 tabling the 22s, then this isn't really an issue, right?
Also, are you saying that when you are playing large numbers of tables that you are starting them in staggerd sets and picking up the new ones in progress when the furthest along finish?

Re: Would you be a winning player at your level if...
 

I have a feeling that sitting out 2 levels and still winning over the long run would be significantly more difficult than most people here realize.

There's a very big difference between playing tight the first 2 levels and sitting them out.