What do you do when you are about to make the leap and BOOM?

[odawg09090]

"Shouldn't there be a prerequisite # of posts before a new poster can start being a smart ass?"

POTD

[BreakEvenPlayer]

POTD's can't be awarded to people who lack sarcasm detectors.

[kahntrutahn]

Im a bit ****ed up right now at 4:30am, but that guy is joking isn't he?

[RunDownHouse]

So you have plenty of bankroll, feel very good about your play, and yet you wonder if you should move up? Why wouldn't you?

I see no reason to stay at a level as long as you a) have the bankroll to take a shot and move back if needed, b) feel good about your current play, and c) can handle it psychologically, mostly meaning seeing a 3bet put $60 out there and not caring.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
you got lucky then

[/ QUOTE ]

rite. i continually get lucky and run good. i actually suck but party is rigged in my favor. its a good situation for me.

seriously tho, basing anything on winrate stats is incredibly stupid. there are a ton of posts on this and you should by now understand that even 100k is a super small sample. my point, to base moving up (or anything for that matter) on winrate will cost you money in the long run.

[Victor]

just in case you dont believe me since my wr is so low: sthief post about 20 2ers

this is for fullring so i would think it would follow that at sh and at higher stakes the variance would be even higher.

[Subby]

I know we all learn/play at different rates, but I don't see the difference between playing 30k hands at a level and playing 100k.

The most important things are skill, which you have, and bankroll, which you also have.

Skill and bankroll are the foundations of confidence, which you need in spades at 10/20.

[SippinSoma]

Move up. Your play will stagnate unless you continuously challenge yourself. Also, pretend the downswing never happened, and just be very focused when you make the move.

[LImitPlayer]

Ok I've reread my post and perhaps I never made my question clear enough, it was late when I wrote it and I was tired.

I kind of babbled on about some things which probably muddled the point of my post.

Bankroll isn't an issue so I am going to move up to 10-20

The question, After experienceing the downsings in 6 max games, is do you think more hands are required to know your tru winrate at Shorthanded games vs Full ring games

The downswings are a larger and more extreme in SH games compared to full ring correct?

I know if I had a 246 BB downswing in a full ring game I would be questioning my ability to beat that game, but in a SH game I take this as varience.

I've had more downswings of 100BB or more in he 100K hands of 5-10 then the over 800,000 hands I had previously logged 12 tabling the 2-4 full ring game.

Can anyone do the math?

[B Dids]

Forcing yourself to play 100k hand at each limit, even if you're soundly beating that limit seems like a fantastic way to stunt your growth.