Moving up!

[1800GAMBLER]

I know a few people who are playing them, they sound a little tougher; Uly said they were too tight. Plus i'm not planning to have a bankroll for the $5000 game anytime soon.

[scrub]

If you're the UB player from New Hampshire I think you are, your'e often the reason the games are bad... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

scrub

[Imperial]

Thank you all for great advice! I play at Ladbrokes and I dubbled up first time playing 2/4$ so it works out fine so far. I have only played at Ladbrokes and have always heard games there are very tough. But now I think the games are a lot easier because of all the new players. In Sweden for example there is a lot of advertising for ladbrokes on television, newspapers etc.

ofcourse the 25/50$ nl tables are still very tough [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Matt Flynn]

As long as you actually do move back down if you lose, I like it a lot. If you have to live on your bankroll or can't stand the thought of starting over, 10 buyins may not be enough. 20 is plenty if you're a solidly winning player.

Matt

[jakeoneil]

jay, you suck balls

[1800GAMBLER]

No image? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I play UB, like my name, I guess I am a horrible player! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Why do you think the games are bad? Can you explain a little further?

[Krytemaster]

Hi Jay!

When I first started at Prima and Ladbrokes I also thought that Prima had much better games but I think the Ladbrokes games have become much better the last weeks actually. I only play the $2-4 and $2.5-5 games at Lad right now and I think they are easier than just a little higher up.

One thing that I think is important when switching from Party to Lad and Prima is that the games are not the same. First of all its the double buy-in which needs some adjustments and the games are often more passive which also needs some adjustments.

When it comes to the $500+ games at Lad I haven´t played there now the last month, as I said only the $400 and $500 games. But I have watched the $2000 game and as you might know Jay, there are some real fish up there, but also very good players of course. I think that when you drop down in level the good players will be a little worse than higher up but you will still find some fish there.

Another thing when it comes to Lad is that I think game selection can be very important. Often I find the games to be good because of one or two players so I think its important to find them and play at their tables, both because of them and also because of them making other players loosen up.


Krytemaster

[scrub]

I don't think the games are bad. The 400 games aren't usually great, but they are certainly quite beatable. Even with UB's evil "bet pot" button.

There is a student from Keene, New Hampshire in the 200, 400, and 1000 games who plays excellent poker, though. He definitely lowers my EV in the 400 games--very rarely makes mistakes and is very aware of the true value of his holding in a given situation. Always seems to make the most he could have made with a given hand that wins, and lose the least he could have with a hand that loses. I was really just complimenting you if you're him.

scrub

[Wardfish]

Just wondered if you had any plans for cashing out at any time?

I have tried these bankroll build plans in the past and found that without drawing cash out I was creating a piggy-bank for the higher-limit players. Eventually I usually ended up dropping a big chunk of money at the higher tables before dropping down in limits again. I believe its demonstrates the Peter Principle.

I find it easier to keep playing my 'A' game if I am actually going to derive some benefit from the cash I withdraw.

1. It makes it easier to justify my constant playing to the 'other half' if the decorating that needs doing is paid for with poker winnings.
2. It holds you at the lower limit for longer, increasing confidence in your play, allowing you to develop your game at a steadier pace.