nanolimits - a waste of time?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyone who beats smaller games, but fails to beat larger games, is almost certainly confused about poker concepts in general."

-David Sklansky.

We'll see how I fare in 4-5 years. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Far be it from me to disagree with DS or the poster, but that quote sounds backwards. Of course I can beat the $0.05/0.10 at Pacific but not the $300/600 at Bellagio! While I personally may still be confused about poker concepts in general, many people who aren't would still struggle in a really really big game.

Reverse the quote and I would take it to be referring to those people who are convinced that they could never win in a really loose game. That means they're not adjusting their play appropriately, and hence may lack some fundamental poker understanding.

[ewile]

NOT a waste of time.

[@bsolute_luck]

well i'm a new player to poker and i'm getting ready to enter the arena soon, so i'd love suggestions. i've played play money for a couple months and can beat it, have been posting here for 1mo., have read SSH at least once, and know what beats what and general strategy for a solid poker game.

i've studied people's hands and really worked on my preflop choices. my starting bankroll: $200. i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

i've studied people's hands and really worked on my preflop choices. my starting bankroll: $200. i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no problem with this.

[3N1GM4]

I definitely don't think the nanolimits are a bad idea for someone just starting out who wants to try poker without the obvious annoyances of some people who play at play money tables.

I started playing on a Prima site about 7 months ago, with a free deposit of $10. I started on .10/.20, because I too thought that anything smaller was probably a waste of time, and believed (as many beginning players surely do) that I was a lot better than I was.

I quickly dropped to .05/.10 once I realised that I was not in fact any good and needed to learn the game more. Through a combination of playing nano/micro limits and reading 2+2 books, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

So I would definitely recommend nano limits to anyone starting out.

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely don't think the nanolimits are a bad idea for someone just starting out who wants to try poker without the obvious annoyances of some people who play at play money tables.

I started playing on a Prima site about 7 months ago, with a free deposit of $10. I started on .10/.20, because I too thought that anything smaller was probably a waste of time, and believed (as many beginning players surely do) that I was a lot better than I was.

I quickly dropped to .05/.10 once I realised that I was not in fact any good and needed to learn the game more. Through a combination of playing nano/micro limits and reading 2+2 books, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

So I would definitely recommend nano limits to anyone starting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

holy explicative! your bankroll is $3000, why are you still playing .25/.5?

[Robert Ezzo]

When I first started out, I played at PokerStars .02/.04 and .05/.10 limits. I had $50, but I also knew that although I "knew how to play poker", I wasn't really all that good. Playing at those limits for about a month gave me time to put into practice what I had been reading in a pile of different books, and to get used to the ebb and flow of the game. I then moved up to .25/.50 at PokerRoom with (what I know now) was way too small of a bankroll, but I think the experience I gained at the nano-limits was invaluable to me. I recommend that approach to anyone who is a relative beginner and wants to play online.

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
, I have now built my bankroll to over $3000 and am comfortably playing .25/.50.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, but if you've put in the time to make a $3000 bankroll at .25/.50, you've missed out on a LOT more profitable games. I'm gonna take a wild and uneducated guess and say you could have made twice that in the same amount of time had you moved up.

[AKQJ10]

afk:

You raise a valid point, and I find myself wondering at what point I should move up. I don't think the "classic" 300 big bet response is always the best solution, and of course waiting until you have 3000 big bets at the higher limit is way beyond the pale. (Mangatang, among others, advocates waiting for 300 big bets on his excellent lesson plan, but I still think it's too conservative.)

Obviously much has to do with one's own comfort level. But it would also be nice to have some idea how to answer the question, "If I'm beating a limit at 1.25 BB/hr in 40 hours, what's the probability that I'm actually able to beat it for 1.0 BB/hr long-term?" This would be sort of a Bayesian problem, I believe, but a very complex one.

Also, it gets more complicated when (like me) you want to learn more than just Hold 'Em. If I'm +100 BB at (say) .25/.50 HE and +50 BB at the same limit O8, is that roughly equivalent to being +150 BB for just one game? Or do I need a bigger "proof of concept" for each game I play?

At present my plan is to grind out the smaller limit until I 'm bankrolled for roughly 150-200 big bets in the larger limit, and then start experimenting with the larger one in VERY limited buy-ins (10-20 big bets, yeah I know that's tiny), gradually increasing the mix of games I play at the higher limit until I'm fully comfortable with it. While this plan is still subject to high variance, it's at least self-correcting in the same sense as Mangatang's. I don't move up unless I'm either good enough or really lucky, and if I'm really lucky then at least I'm bankrolled to take a few hits before I realize I'm not good enough. However, unlike Mangatang I probably wouldn't wait until I was -100 big bets at a higher limit to move down.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm going to start an account with Paradise with the GRANNY code. from there i thought i'd start at the .25/.5 tables.

whatch u guys think? good?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find Paradise to be much tougher games than Pacific, and I think most people would agree from what I've read here. Of course I'd rather you fish in different waters, so I'll point out that with Pac you're sacrificing hand histories to all intents and purposes. So yeah, go with Paradise. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]