Moving from Limit to NL

Thus far I have pretty much been an exclusive limit player - only exception was NL SNGs, at which I have done pretty well.

I recently decided to give NL a shot and so far so good - I am taking it very cautiously at this point.

My question is whether there are any books that exist that are the equivalent of SSHE for NL.

[Larimani]

No limit and pot limit hold'em by reubens and caffione

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

My question is whether there are any books that exist that are the equivalent of SSHE for NL.

[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't an equivalent yet. The closest might be Harrington on Hold'em, Volume 1. That does give some good examples of how to think about NL. However, it deals with tournament play with relatively shallow stacks, and there are many parts of postflop play that are barely touched.

[4_2_it]

Hank, nice to see you moving to NL. Unfortunately, HOH 1 early tourney and Super System 2 are probably the only decent NL texts out there.

I would not recommend trying to play Doyle's hyper aggressive strategy until you get 10k-20k of NL in and feel comfortable with your game.

Two things to focus on are position and pot control. Play small with a vulnerable hand and a large pot with a drawing hand. Start out playing extra tight in early position and if you feel the need to loosen up do on CO and the button.

Post any other questions you might have and I'll try to help. I assume you are starting at NL $25 or NL $50?

[playersare]

the best plan for an existing LHE player to delve into NL and tourneys is in Ed Miller's GSIH. start with the short stack cash game strategy and work up from there.

[ QUOTE ]
Hank, nice to see you moving to NL. Unfortunately, HOH 1 early tourney and Super System 2 are probably the only decent NL texts out there.

I would not recommend trying to play Doyle's hyper aggressive strategy until you get 10k-20k of NL in and feel comfortable with your game.

Two things to focus on are position and pot control. Play small with a vulnerable hand and a large pot with a drawing hand. Start out playing extra tight in early position and if you feel the need to loosen up do on CO and the button.

Post any other questions you might have and I'll try to help. I assume you are starting at NL $25 or NL $50?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm such a NL noob that I'm not even sure what that question means

I am assuming that refers to the buy in

I am currently playing .25/.25 NL on pokerrom - the max buy in is $25

What sort of bankroll do I need to support that? Should I be buying in for $25 or does it make sense to start smaller?

I seem to have a decent handle on the game overall - I understand the principles - I am just not sure if I have been lucky thus far or not. The thing is that so far, I am seriously just kicking ass.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I am currently playing .25/.25 NL on pokerrom - the max buy in is $25

What sort of bankroll do I need to support that?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you aren't sure you are a solid winner, or winning at all, you should not yet be concerned with having a bankroll.

If you win at a very good rate, sustainable at NL $25 but perhaps not much above that level, you can be quite safe at NL $25 with only 10 buy-ins. If you win at a lower rate, you may need 20 or 50 buy-ins to reduce the risk of going broke. See this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Should I be buying in for $25 or does it make sense to start smaller?

[/ QUOTE ]
You will find conflicting advice about this. Some people will tell you that you must buy in for as much as possible in case you get a straight flush against quads. The truth is the following:

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] The stack size greatly affects the proper strategy. Winning limit player will find the strategy to be more similar to limit when the stacks are short, and should immediately be winning players when they buy in short. Winning limit players who buy in for 100 BB can easily start out losers.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Buying in short gives you an intrisic advantage. You can play short-stacked poker, trying to get paid off with a big pair, or TPGK, and to steal a lot of blinds and limps. Deep-stacked opponents have to worry about each other, where they will play for sets and straights and flushes more, so they can't play short-stacked poker optimally.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Many good players buy in short, not because they are unable to handle deep stacks, but because they recognize that a short stack might be more profitable than a deep stack in some games, and if they feel otherwise as the game progresses, they can add money. You can't remove money from your stack at the table.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You will just as frequently get quads against someone's straight flush, and be happy that you couldn't lose more money. Less extreme examples happen frequently. They are less memorable than having the a royal flush and getting bet into, at which point I'd take a screenshot, but being on the wrong side happens frequently.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Buying in short reduced your variance.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Buying in short makes it easier to bet for value, and decreases the effectiveness of both your bluffs and your opponents' bluffs.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Buying in short lets you clear bonuses rapidly while reducing the amount of rake you pay.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Many bad players buy in short, but buying in short does not cause bad play. It will mean people take you less seriously, so they will make bad calls against you. This is easily exploited.

As you get more comfortable with NL, you should sometimes buy in for the full amount. It may be your default. The skills are different, and worth practicing, and it is profitable to exploit a skill advantage in a big pot. However, it is a really bad idea for beginners.

[ QUOTE ]

I seem to have a decent handle on the game overall - I understand the principles - I am just not sure if I have been lucky thus far or not. The thing is that so far, I am seriously just kicking ass.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congratulations on your success so far.

To help determine when you can conclude that it is unlikely to be just luck, you can compute how many standard deviations you are above breaking even. If you are 1 standard deviation above breaking even, this is mild evidence that you are a winner. If you are 2 standard deviations about breaking even, this is strong evidence that you are a winner. If you are 3 standard deviations above breaking even, you should be safe in concluding that you are a winning player at the moment. There is about a 95% chance that your actual results will be within about 2 standard deviations of what they "ought" to be, and this rises to about 99.7% for 3 standard deviations.

The standard deviation per 100 hands is about 100 big blinds. (This depends on your playing style. PokerTracker reports this in big bets/100. 1 big bet = 2 big blinds.) If you play n*100 hands, the standard deviation of your total is about squareroot(n)*100 big blinds. The standard deviation of your win rate/100 hands is about 100/sqrt(n). These figures should be adjusted proportionately if you find that your standard deviation is higher or lower than 100 big blinds every 100 hands.

For example, suppose you are ahead $200 after 5000 hands. Your standard deviation is sqrt(50)*100 ~700 big blinds, and the big blind is $0.25, so your standard deviation is about $175. You are ahead about 1 standard deviation, and you have mild evidence that you are a winning player. Your win rate of 16 big blinds/100 is ok, but a 95% confidence interval would be roughly 16+-28 big blinds/100. (PokerTracker would report your win rate as 8 big bets/100.)

[Piper Tim]

[ QUOTE ]
the best plan for an existing LHE player to delve into NL and tourneys is in Ed Miller's GSIH. start with the short stack cash game strategy and work up from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am really a limit player and find it more interesting, but I have been playing a lot of NL25 to work off the latest Party bonus. The short stack strategy in GSIH has worked really well for me.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hank, nice to see you moving to NL. Unfortunately, HOH 1 early tourney and Super System 2 are probably the only decent NL texts out there.

I would not recommend trying to play Doyle's hyper aggressive strategy until you get 10k-20k of NL in and feel comfortable with your game.

Two things to focus on are position and pot control. Play small with a vulnerable hand and a large pot with a drawing hand. Start out playing extra tight in early position and if you feel the need to loosen up do on CO and the button.

Post any other questions you might have and I'll try to help. I assume you are starting at NL $25 or NL $50?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm such a NL noob that I'm not even sure what that question means

I am assuming that refers to the buy in

I am currently playing .25/.25 NL on pokerrom - the max buy in is $25

What sort of bankroll do I need to support that? Should I be buying in for $25 or does it make sense to start smaller?

I seem to have a decent handle on the game overall - I understand the principles - I am just not sure if I have been lucky thus far or not. The thing is that so far, I am seriously just kicking ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about NL is that while overall variance is lower than lower, you can (or I should say will) go through downswings (and upswings)of up to 8-10 buy-ins.

pvzon(?) has some excellent advice to follow as you get used to playing with your entire stack on any given hand.

I realize that I am much more of a deep stack player and will sit around waiting to stack people with sets. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
the best plan for an existing LHE player to delve into NL and tourneys is in Ed Miller's GSIH. start with the short stack cash game strategy and work up from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly. I only dabbled in NL before and using Ed's short stack stratgey was fanatastic advice and has worked very well for me since I read it.