Why so many of you experience downswings when moving up

[Sasnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that someone with a VPIP of 12% and a low PFR has stuff to learn, but they would still beat the 2/4. Not for optimal amounts of money maybe, but they'd still beat the limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read SSHE a month ago and am using the info to turn my game around. I was from the school of tight is right philosophy. Using WLLHE I folded hands I probably should have stayed with according to SSHE. My stats are askew because of my earlier play, which fits the 12% VP$IP and 4% PFR category of weak/tight mentioned above.

Using bisons rating thread, is the money bag the most optimal stats? VP$IP <20, PFR >5 and TA >2?

I'm working on my play while keeping an eye on my short term numbers to gauge my play and give me a base line. What numbers should I be looking for?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Using bisons rating thread, is the money bag the most optimal stats? VP$IP <20, PFR >5 and TA >2?


[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I like the idea of a 18-22 VP$IP(Ed Miller advocates this), a PFR of around 8, and a Total Postflop aggression of over 1.5, prob should be slightly higher.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using bisons rating thread, is the money bag the most optimal stats? VP$IP <20, PFR >5 and TA >2?


[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I like the idea of a 18-22 VP$IP(Ed Miller advocates this), a PFR of around 8, and a Total Postflop aggression of over 1.5, prob should be slightly higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might be good to keep in mind that bison plays $3/6. Miller's recommendations are for loose games. They're not necessarily the same.

[Rah]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I love having a player or two like this at my table. They're weak, predictable, and easy to bet off a hand. In my PT database I have 17 such players with over 50 hands who meet this criteria. 15 are losers, all of which are at worse than a -3 BB/100 clip. The 2 "winners" are both under 2 BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they're weak. But they're tight and won't fold a sure winner and that's all it takes to make some kind of profit. You need a lot more than 50 hands to know *anything* about their winrates (which obviously must be less than 2 bb/100, by the way).

[Rah]

The numbers you want depends on what game you play. Obviously, you'll play some hands in a very loose game you otherwise won't (in a typical loose/passive game, you can slide in Axs and low pocket pairs from early positions etc). A VPIP of around 20 (or lower) and a PFR of about 8 are good standard full ring stats though.

[jeffnc]

You will not necessarily be "crushing" those games if you are ready to move up. The reason is the one you already gave in your post yourself - because it's results oriented. What else does "crushing" mean if not results oriented? First you say move up if you're skilled enough, then you say if you're skilled enough you'll be crushing the game. Doesn't work that way. The basic problem here, as always, is that there's no solid, objective way to know how skilled you are or what your theoretical win rate is.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that someone with a VPIP of 12% and a low PFR has stuff to learn...

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I love having a player or two like this at my table. They're weak, predictable, and easy to bet off a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't imply that. He just said they're tight and have a low PFR. It doesn't mean they're either weak or predictable. It means exactly what he said, no less no more. Now if they had a flop % of 12 and were weak and predictable, then we could conclude they were weak and predictable.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi there,
I'm new to poker, but have studied intensively and have made more than 7BB/100 hands at .5/1 Party Poker over ~8,300 hands. I know that's a very small sample size and my results may be anomolous.

In any case, I did try 1/2 for about 1500 hands and lost 25 bets to a cold streak when I two-tabled (single tabling I made a profit). It wasn't a big deal to me, but it did teach me that there's a significant difference between the two limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what it should teach you is that you ran into a cold streak. There is WAY too much generalizing going on about limits and levels. You need to analyze the type of game happening, regardless of limit. If you saw some of the horrible poker being played, on occasion, at $5/10 or even higher, I think you'd gag. Like someone else already said, these are mostly bankroll issues, not type of game issues.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but they would still beat the 2/4. Not for optimal amounts of money maybe, but they'd still beat the limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I love having a player or two like this at my table. They're weak, predictable, and easy to bet off a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't imply that. He just said they're tight and have a low PFR. It doesn't mean they're either weak or predictable. It means exactly what he said, no less no more. Now if they had a flop % of 12 and were weak and predictable, then we could conclude they were weak and predictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part of his post I was replying to was the part you chose to cut out in your post. It now appears correctly. And yes a person with a VP$IP of below 12% and a low PFR is weak and predictable. Feel free to try to play with that tight type of poker, but its not even close to playing well. Playing overly tight is just as bad as playing too loose because you're missing out on way too many of your profitable oppurtunities.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
You will not necessarily be "crushing" those games if you are ready to move up. The reason is the one you already gave in your post yourself - because it's results oriented. What else does "crushing" mean if not results oriented? First you say move up if you're skilled enough, then you say if you're skilled enough you'll be crushing the game. Doesn't work that way. The basic problem here, as always, is that there's no solid, objective way to know how skilled you are or what your theoretical win rate is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying you won't crush an easy game if you're skilled enough to beat a tougher game is the same as the people who say "I can't beat these loose low limit games, maybe I should move up to $X/$X where they don't cold call raises with 85s and where my Aces won't always be cracked". Do you honestly think that any player who could beat 3/6 or higher for a around 3 BB/100 winrate wouldn't be able to crush $0.25/$0.50 or $0.50/$1?