Big Jump - From Party $100NL to $1000NL?? - Page 3

fsuplayer · #21 03-21-2005, 11:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You probably already know this, but Party considers uncalled bets to be part of the pot for the purpose of determining the average pot size. So sometimes tables will appear to have very big pots but really it's a lot of aggressive play which results in many large uncalled bets. As you move up the players get more aggressive so this will definitely impact the lobby stats somewhat. Also, some guy moving all-in for $5000 when his opponent only has $200 left will completely screw up the average pot size for that table since that extra $4800 is still counted as part of the pot. So I guess what I'm saying is, don't just look at the table stats and try to make judgements. You need to actually open up a few tables and see how the money is going into the pot -- are there people raising UTG with KJo and going to showdown with top pair? Or is there a lot of action coming from late-position players who are selectively applying pressure?

All that said though, there are many people playing in the 1000s that have flaws in their game at very fundamental levels. For example, I've seen one player who is supposedly winning quite a bit of money limp UTG+1 with Q2s. I've seen people limp UTG with A9s, minraise from MP with ace-rag, and there's even the occasional player that will play damn near every single hand. And that only covers the preflop leaks. You don't need to do anything special to win -- just identify the mistakes that people are making and take advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

limping utg w/A9s isnt a mistake if a few people have already doubled up and the satkes are big. raising is better though, but ill limp in some situations for specific reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

raising A9s UTG in the 6 max you play is ok, but in a full ring game its no good.

soah · #22 03-21-2005, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about the shorthanded games

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not.

And I understand that very good postflop play can make up for playing weak hands preflop, but I didn't feel like elaborating for three paragraphs about all of the horrible postflop play that I've witnessed.

Matt Flynn · #23 03-21-2005, 02:04 PM

i have adjusted my play to more hands preflop and more annoyance raises for those reasons. so do you show big bluffs cero?

matt

theBruiser500 · #24 03-21-2005, 02:37 PM

If you are good enough at NLHE then starting with 1k at NL $100 you should be able to build up to NL 2k and $200 easy, and then from there to 4k and NL $400 easy and you wiwll be at 1k buy in soon. if you are not good enough then you might get stuck at a lower level and that is good that way you can't lose all yoru money

Matt Flynn · #25 03-21-2005, 02:59 PM

it is quite loose in a 6-handed game too.

theBruiser500 · #26 03-21-2005, 03:08 PM

i would default raise that A9s utg unless i had raised the last hand and/or i knew something about the palyers

LuvDemNutz · #27 03-21-2005, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you are good enough at NLHE then starting with 1k at NL $100 you should be able to build up to NL 2k and $200 easy, and then from there to 4k and NL $400 easy and you wiwll be at 1k buy in soon. if you are not good enough then you might get stuck at a lower level and that is good that way you can't lose all yoru money

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that $4K is a big enough bankroll to play the 400NL?

Are you also saying that if you've built your bankroll to $4K playing the 200NL that you are good enough to play the 400NL and win?

I ask because this happens to be my exact situation at the moment.

soah · #28 03-21-2005, 03:33 PM

When I first started playing six-max I was extremely aggressive, and for UTG I would generally raise A9s and muck A8s/A9o. But after I had played it longer I began mucking A9s and raising with ATs/ATo (or limping, sorta depending on my mood and how the table was playing). I think the decision is close, and in the long run it probably won't matter much what you choose.

soah · #29 03-21-2005, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are good enough at NLHE then starting with 1k at NL $100 you should be able to build up to NL 2k and $200 easy, and then from there to 4k and NL $400 easy and you wiwll be at 1k buy in soon. if you are not good enough then you might get stuck at a lower level and that is good that way you can't lose all yoru money

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that $4K is a big enough bankroll to play the 400NL?

Are you also saying that if you've built your bankroll to $4K playing the 200NL that you are good enough to play the 400NL and win?

I ask because this happens to be my exact situation at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple of different ways that people think about bankroll. If you intend to always cash out when you're over 4k, then at some point you will go on a horrible downswing and lose that 4k. Your risk of ruin under that plan would be close to 100%. On the other hand, if you leave your winnings in your bankroll, then you will make enough money to ride out those rare, horrible downswings. With 10 buy-ins I think you are fine to take a shot, with the plan that if you start off winning, you'll continue there, and if you start off bad, you'll drop back down.

KaneKungFu123 · #30 03-21-2005, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When I first started playing six-max I was extremely aggressive, and for UTG I would generally raise A9s and muck A8s/A9o. But after I had played it longer I began mucking A9s and raising with ATs/ATo (or limping, sorta depending on my mood and how the table was playing). I think the decision is close, and in the long run it probably won't matter much what you choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Soah:

The more hands you play, the better feel youll get for the game, and eventually youll play every hand when it come: sometimes it will be a good time to raise A8s UTG, and sometimes its a fold. When you start playing by a chart, sharks like me will pick up on it and rip the [censored] out of you.