Thoughts on seeking your own level

[dfscott]

I'll caveat this entire post with the fact that this is all idle speculation and not based on any hard data (nor a significant amount of personal experience), so I welcome any feedback and/or opposing views...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that as long as you have X buy-ins (pick a value for X, but 50 seems to be pretty common), that it's worth moving up to the next level. Of course, you can always take a shot a bit earlier, but I'm taking about your "home" level here.

But the question remains of determining what is the best place (for a given individual) to play. Specifically, does it make sense to pound away at a higher level, just barely breaking even, or should one move down when success doesn't come over a reasonable period (say Y tournaments -- feel free to suggest a value for Y). Staying at a higher level has the benefits of learning to play against tougher competition, although sometimes the lesson gets lost if you can't understand why your opponents are beating you. There's also the human element that it's much more frustrating to play when you're barely breaking even.

Moving back down when you don't have success at a higher level has the advantage of more satisfying play, but it seems that you also might be sacrificing the learning experience of playing against tougher competition (yes, I know that this contradicts what I said in the previous paragraph, but it's because I'm not really sure the value of the learning, so I'm flip-flopping on the issue). You may be able to win, despite serious flaws in your game, and for most people, it requires much more discipline to self-examine when you're winning. There's also the trick of trying to determine when to take another shot. Say you rebuild, move up again, and run hot at the new level -- are you really ready?

I think the root of this issue is that it's really hard to know what level you have the ability to beat until you play a significant amount of games, and most people aren't willing (or emotionally able) to play that many games at a level where they start off breaking even (or losing). The cycle then becomes:

1) Get BR for new level
2) Start playing new level
3) If you run hot -- stay at new level. Goto #5
4) If you run cold -- get frustrated (or BR-damaged) and move back down. Goto #1
5) Restart cycle at higher level

Looking at it this way, someone who has the skills to only beat the 11s (but no higher) could run hot, move up to the 22s, run hot some more, move the 33s, and then run cold (or average) and suddenly find themselves back at the 11s (and probably broke and/or shell-shocked to boot). By the same token, someone with the skills to beat the 100s could get mired at a lower level because they ran so cold that they were forced to move down due to BR (or more likely, emotional distress).

I think the reason for this is because most people aren't willing to stick it out at a level for those Y number of tournaments required to get a "true" picture of your ability. As a result, except of the truly long-term players, most people are playing the level that they're currently playing more due to accidents of positive and negative variation.