Moving up to $10-20-Prerequisite BB/100 in $5-10 6MAX??

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think win-rate requirements for moving up are ridiculous since they are so unreliable. I value my intuitive feelings about a limit much more than win rate.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is dead-on.

[BottlesOf]

I started playing 5/10 6max after a bad run at 15/30 in late jan. I had some trouble adjusting to 6max, and started out with a nice little 100BB slide. I played the game for another....I dunno 40K hands, and had a wr somewhere areound 1.3 (meaningless, I know).

I posted some stats and said I was plnning on moving up, what did people think. I got some useful stat feedback, but started a huge debate about whether to move up or not. Some people said I would get killed. Others said, f the stats, you've got the roll, just play and see what happens, it's a different game anyway.

I moved up May 1, and have been beating the game for a higher rate. Again, I haven't even played 50K hands, but so far, so good.

[Derek in NYC]

Interesting thread. I'm basically in the same situation as Goodguy was when he posted this, namely, in some ways I feel like I can beat 10/20 6-max, but Im too nervous about the variance to actually take a shot.

Over the past 60k hands, I have run at around 3.0 BB/100 pretty consistently, with some 7k breakeven stretches. I'm rolled about $30k. My game is a bit atypical for what most consider optimal. I run around 28/17 (too passive for this level of looseness?), and I fold my BB around 52% (too weak?). I have a standard deviation of around 17BBs (normal?). My stats concern me, so I'm inclined to play out more hands to see if my winning trend continues. I definitely dont think about hands as deeply as some posters here.

I've concluded that the bottom line is that I'm psychologically too afraid of the variance, and it makes more sense for me to continue to build my bankroll, and add tables (unlike most of you, I play only 2 tables right now). When my bankroll hits $50k, and Im comfortably multitabling 3-4 tables, I will get serious about moving up. At that time, I also intend to write a detailed self-analysis of my PT information, disclose my screen name, and solicit comments from the forum.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past 60k hands, I have run at around 3.0 BB/100 pretty consistently, with some 7k breakeven stretches. I'm rolled about $30k.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've concluded that the bottom line is that I'm psychologically too afraid of the variance

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When my bankroll hits $50k, and Im comfortably multitabling 3-4 tables, I will get serious about moving up

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously...just take a shot. Two-table for 5k hands or give it 200BB. Do yourself a favor and don't wait for $50k. Variance sucks but you'll get used to it...

___1___

[Victor]

this thread is stupid. move up when you have the roll and feel mentally ready. winrate is super unrealiable.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think win-rate requirements for moving up are ridiculous since they are so unreliable. I value my intuitive feelings about a limit much more than win rate.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is dead-on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. F-winrates. If you have the roll and think you want to try it move up. What I uusually do is take a 50BB stab at the next limit. If I get beat at least I can realistically determine if I was beat due to being outclassed or simply outcarded and now I know if I'm ready to move up or not.

If I'm ready to move up I just rebuild the 50BB (which is now 100BB at the lower limit) and take another stab. This has basically always been the way that I move up, although I used to do it with 20BB stabs and that may be better.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
I know there's a lot of talk about how much harder the 10/20 6-max players are....but in my book, VP-50 guys are universally pretty terrible (to greater or lesser degrees of course).
When you are sitting with a VP-90 guy on a 10/20 6-max table you are not likely to be TOO bothered by the fact that 2 of the other players at the table also happen to be pretty good.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are still these players. I've found that the table makeup is generally different between the limits, though.

A typical 5/10 table might have about four loose/passive players and two tight/aggressives. The two good players prey on the loose/passives. You're basically splitting your profits with one other player, and the four bad players trade money with each other.

A typical 10/20 game, however, might have four tight/aggressive players and two loose/aggressive players. This makes a big difference. Instead of just one other guy fighting for the bad players' money, you have three other players fighting for it. The loose/aggressives at 10/20 are also harder to deal with than the loose/passives at 5/10.

Loose/passives are a rare bird at 10/20, but you occasionally see them.

Also, the TAGs are better at 10/20 than 5/10, and I've found that the loose players often are good hand readers. Some of them play well after the flop and would probably be winning players if they were just more conservative preflop.

All of these factors make the game much more difficult to beat. Mercifully, the rake is less relative to the stakes. Also, if you practice good table selection, you can probably find some 10/20 tables that look more like a typical 5/10 table.

Don't know if this is what others have seen, but that is my experience.

[ddubois]

My situation is unusual, because I'm trying to figure out if/when/how I'll ever be able to progress past 5/10 when I only play like 5k hands a month.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]


My situation is unusual, because I'm trying to figure out if/when/how I'll ever be able to progress past 5/10 when I only play like 5k hands a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ, did someone have to bump this AGAIN?

Isn't this like the 2nd or 3rd time it's been needlessly bumped?

[ddubois]

I'm not sure if more than a "FU" is warranted given your tone, but ok: It's the 2nd time. And it's a high quality thread with eternal relevence, so it having some extra visibility doesn't bother me.