A good example of how long swings can last -- why taking shots is bad.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
"taking a shot" means playing above your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
Taken in the context of Joshua's OP I'm not sure that this is what he was referring to. I took it to simply mean making a move up in limits - w/o relation to your bankroll.

[chief444]

I think you're 3/6 number is really running well. .5/1 and 2/4 though I'd be surprised if you didn't sustain that if you played more at each respective level. And that's over half of your sample.

[uw_madtown]

While the streakiness of poker is never a bad thing to point out, I have no idea why you believe this is a reason never to take shots.

I'm not sure what you're defining as a "shot" though -- if you're saying that a 2/4 player w/ a $1200 bankroll shouldn't take a shot at the 15/30 game, then I agree. But your reasoning -- that you don't want to run good at a level where you're actually a loser and end up deluding yourself -- is a danger whether you move up when you have 250 BB, 300 BB, or 500 BB. And vice versa -- running bad at first may make you jump back down, but it doesn't mean you're a loser at the game, but that can happen no matter how big your BR is.

The key to taking shots is to be intelligent about how short the short term is, and exercising proper bankroll management. Running good at first at a new level isn't a danger when taking a shot IF you realize how short term things are, and are fully prepared to move back down if things run bad. For example, moving up w/ 300 BBs for the new level -- if you win 100 BB off the bat, you may think you're better than you are, yes. But if you drop 200 BB after that and hit the 200 BB mark, then whether you think you're beating the game or not, you should consider moving down due to bankroll management concerns.

I'm just having trouble understanding why you think this makes taking shots a bad idea.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
While the streakiness of poker is never a bad thing to point out, I have no idea why you believe this is a reason never to take shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the streakiness of poker allows you to get in way over your head if you take shots at higher levels without being very sure you're beating the level you're at. It's concievable that a player could be 2 or 3 limits above where he's beating because he continues to "take shots" up the ladder. His fall is going to be huge, even though he had the bankroll at each shot.

[sweetjazz]

I have a somewhat similar story. I've played a little over 30K hands at 0.5/1 - 2/4 and I ran really good. I have a grossly inflated winrate for those hands. Among the ways I ran good is that I was dealt JJ and KK about 20 times more often than would be expected. That's about 50-60 BBs extra in expectation, which alone accounts for a 0.2 BB/100 increase in my winrate. I also probably hit straights and flushes with a higher frequency that could be expected and also hit a lot of redraws on the river when my hand was outdrawn on the turn.

I've played a little over 5K hands at 3/6 and I don't have a winrate. I have a lossrate of over 1 BB/100.

It's true that my longterm winrate has dropped at 3/6 because the competition is tougher and because I haven't adequately adjusted my play.

I think it's more likely that I am a losing or breakeven (no better than 0.5 BB/100) player at 3/6 than that I am a winner at the game, at least if I continue to play the way I have to this point. But that opinion is not based on the stats, but rather on the specific hands I have played.

In some ways, the losing streak may be more of a blessing than running well. I developed some bad habits, including a fair amount of overaggression, which was reinforced by my running well. Now I am forced to reevaluate a lot of the decisions that I had started to put on auto-pilot. The trick is to adjust without overcompensating and playing too scared because I am running bad.

This, to me, is one of the hardest aspects of poker: figuring out optimal play by observing the playing style of your opponents, without being misled by the short-term fluctuations which sometimes cause a non-optimal play to produce the best results for long periods of time. The only place I have seen this in print is Chapter 1 of SSHE, and I think it's one of the most interesting topics covered in any poker book.

[ckessel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While the streakiness of poker is never a bad thing to point out, I have no idea why you believe this is a reason never to take shots.

[/ QUOTE ]
His fall is going to be huge, even though he had the bankroll at each shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you take them. I've systematically taken shots when I have 300BB for the level above my current level. I take 25BB (the standard) and start running 1 of my 2/3 tables at that level. If I drop down to my magic 300BB mark I keep at my current level.

I don't take my whole bankroll up. I just dip my toes. If I win enough to fund 25BB at 3 tables, I dip more toes. Eventually if I'm winning all my toes are in. If I drop back down to 300BB because I actually sucked and was just on a hot streak, then I drop back down a level.

I went from 2/4->3/6->2/4 many, many times before I finally got to be a slightly better than break even 3/6 player [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bkholdem]

I happen to be conservative when it comes to bankroll as well. I'm a recent convert from no limit. I was a winning player there and I suspect that I will continue to be a winning player at limit. I started with limit live and then online before changing to no limit.

That being said, I think it is in everyone's best interest (and am fairly certain it is in my best interest at least) that healthy dialouge and the respectful exchange and discussion of different viewpoints will benefit us all.

I say that for a few reasons, mostly because there are benefits and drawbacks to both taking shots and playing a conservative bankroll. One of the biggest advantages in 'taking shots' is significantly increasing one's bankroll and income much quicker than possible if playing on a conservative bankroll. According to Daniel N. all the players in the biggest games got there by 'taking shots'.

Conversely, accumulating a bankroll of 1000BB's for 100/200 is going to take an awful long time if one uses a requirement of 1000BB's at each limit. And if one is dependent on the income they get from playing it is quite possible that you will never get there (maybe someone wants to run a few numbers, if not I think the general point is clear).

I have noticed, at least for me, that there is the 'money bankroll' and the 'psychological bankroll' if you will. In no limit it is typically suggested that 20 buy in's is a sufficient bankroll. Well, for me, 40 buy in's is a figure I"m much more comfortable with. Am I likely to go broke playing a level I can reasonably beat with 20 buy ins? No. However, am I going to play optimally to the best of my ability with 20 buy ins? I have learned the answer is also NO.

I sweat the bottom line too much on a 20 buy in bankroll. Hell, I sweat the bottom line on a friggin infinate bankroll (exaggeration for emphasis to make a point). I play too weak/scared on that bankroll and miss too many +EV plays.

I tried 'taking shots' on a 7 buy in bankroll and decided that wasn't for me when I dropped to 4 buy ins. I played too scared. I was extremely tence and preoccupied, almost preying for the deck to hit me on each and every turn of the cards.

There is a poster in the no limit forum who 'took shots'. He was playing .5/1 blinds no limit a year or two ago and now he plays 25/50 and 50/100 blinds games. So now, assuming he is a winning player at those levels and remains so, he is earning big time each day as compared to what he would be earning if he used a more conservative approach. Like, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

Then again, taking shots and missing and you go broke if you don't use a stop loss.

I personally think that it's a very viable option to take shots. I guess for me I will only do it with a predetermined portion of my bankroll. I think that it will require a lot less fortitude to do so in limit poker as well.

I think for most people moving up in limits is a process whether or not they do it on a conservative or marginal bankroll. Test the waters and drop back down, etc... If it's clear your killing it you stay there. If your intimidated by the money you drop back down and move back up a few times until you get comfortable with the difference in $$ that are splashing around.

I am currently playing 6 tables of 2/4 and have the bankroll to play 5/10 using the 300bb guideline.

(I would have the bankroll to play 15/30 if I didn't spend my roll that I accumulated over the last year in the real world). Just a few thoughts.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While the streakiness of poker is never a bad thing to point out, I have no idea why you believe this is a reason never to take shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the streakiness of poker allows you to get in way over your head if you take shots at higher levels without being very sure you're beating the level you're at. It's concievable that a player could be 2 or 3 limits above where he's beating because he continues to "take shots" up the ladder. His fall is going to be huge, even though he had the bankroll at each shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) While it is very concievable that a player following the 300 BB guideline could run well enough to jump up a level before being sure he's beating his current game, the odds of a losing player at, say, 2/4, running hot enough to jump from 2/4 to say 10/20 are quite bad. Running hot over multiple levels where you have to earn many BBs is unlikely, and even more unlikely for a losing player.

Even still -- what's the harm, if someone ran up to 10/20 and then had to drop back level by level until they were all the way back to 2/4? Someone doing this is almost assuredly NOT a professional relying on the money as income, because they clearly know they're beating the level they started at (if they aren't, they're like the worst pro ever). So we're dealing with an everyday poker amateur who might have dreams of going pro, but for now is largely in it to improve their game, move up in levels, build a bankroll, etc.

The most hurt this person is going to take from a fast run up the ladder (and a subsequent fall) is a big shot to the ego. On the other hand, they'll gain valuable experience at higher levels, and may even experience bicyclekick-like success. As long as they're always prepared to move back down when, say, they've dropped to the 300 BB mark for the PREVIOUS level (ie, hitting 5/10 w/ $3000, and moving back down when you're down to $1800) I see very little reason to discourage such "shots."

That's how you learn, and move up. Yes, they may run very hot or cold and based on results have a skewed idea of their skill, but that's what confidence intervals are for -- so can keep those short term results in perspective, and not get "married" to your new stakes. Just like a real nice poker hand. You might start with jacks, but a good player is brutally honest with himself and knows when to let even a great starting hand go.

FWIW, I'm a follower of the toe-dipping school of thought when it comes to moving up, and I thought kessel's post was quite good. And I do think that shots can be quite dangerous if the player is a results-oriented thinker who might not have the self-control to drop down if he starts to run bad.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i'm new to this thread but am responding because i saw my name mentioned in it about my 60k breakeven streak.

yes play enough hands and streaks will go insane on you. however, i'm pretty impressed with your numbers though it is clear you are running well, but it should obviously be clear from your own experience rather than these stats, to tell you how good at poker you are, which probably is pretty damn well.

fwiw, i have more than twice as many hands of 3/6 than you and a 10% higher vpip and the same winrate. i just like to point that out anytime i get the chance to. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Wepeel]

May I ask what you steal with in order to get a steal rate of 41.25 at 3/6? Is this high steal rate because of your hot cards (39.11 W$WSF seems extremely high) in late position?

If anything this post shows me that I suck at stealing and I'm leaving money on the tables. It's nice to see someone who is good at poker telling others who may be running hot with their egos through the roof to keep everything in perspective. On the other hand, these stats show me you are a damn fine player.