Moving Up and Controlling Table Stakes

[colgin]

There is a tremendous amount of angst on this and other forums about moving up and whether or not we have the required skill to do so and, if so, whether we have the required bankroll to tackle a higher limit without risk of ruin. People talk about how big your bankroll needs to be monetarily; how big your BR needs to be for "emotional" reasons; whether you should commit to the next level or take the occassional "shots"; etc., etc.

Part of the problem is that for experienced players at one limit who suspect that at the next higher limit they would be no worse than break-even (and probably at least small winners), once you get past the micro levels the stakes tend to increase significantly each time you move up (often doubling) making the swings in nominal terms very dramatic even if they haven't changed in terms of actual standard deviation on a BB basis (which they may do also).

I would suspect that many posters here who ask "Should I move up to $5/10 full" would feel pretty comfortable if Party spread a $4/8 game playing there.

I see a lot of people talking about adding a single table of the next limit to their play before moving up "full time" so to speak. But I don't see people talking about multitabling different stakes to create artificially the stakes they would like to be playing given their current bankroll size. The beauty of online multitabling is that this can be done. One obvious example is that two tables of $3/6 and two of $5/10 yield a volume weighted avergae table stake of $4/8.

Of course, the problem is that no number of hands played like that will let you conclude that you are now beating the "Party $4/8 game" because that game does not, in fact, exist. You need to evaluate whether you are beating each of the stakes separately and this takes some critical self-analysis as well as review of stats. If you are playing only half the number of $5/10 table as if you had moved up full time then it may take longer to determine without doubt that you are actually beating those games. Still, for those who are hesitant to move up primarily for BR reasons, this blended table approach may be beneficial. Rather than play $3/6 too long so you can build up a BR that is indisputably sufficient (assuming you are a winner) for $5/10 or $10/20, you can make gradual climbs as your BR increases. IIRC, John Feeney may talk about this a little in "Inside the Poker Mind" and King Yao at least alludes to it in his section on online play in "Weighing the Odds. . . "

Below is a table showing several artifical stakes that can be created by blending existing Party games (assuming 4-tabling), as well as the BR in nominal terms that would be required assuming 600BBs is a sufficient BR for a given level on average and in general (a debatable point but I am going to use that figure here). This approach can be played with to reach different stakes and different BR requirements.

[bigalt]

My initial thought is that I really don't think this is a healthy behavior. When moving to a new limit you need to adjust to the new style of play. Unless the play at your last limit is completely robotic (in which case I would think you should have moved up a while ago) it's going to get confusing to be multi-tasking.

Yes, a BB is a BB is a BB, but a turn-checkraise (I think) means different things from different people in different limits.

Also, and perhaps I'm behind the times, but the only difference I see between single- and multi tabling is the number of hands played per hour (and the attention you have available). You could also achieve this "hybrid" effect by playing a half hour of pure 3/6 followed by a half hour of pure 5/10.

Perhaps I don't have the perspective of someone relying on poker for income but I don't think this is a worthwhile tactic, as opposed to moving up, and then moving back down if you take a beating.

edit: and to detract from the negative tone, I absolutely love it when people post (worthwhile) broader picture posts, and you even made us a chart!

[GrunchCan]

There's an interesting and realted discussion going on in micros, too.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
My initial thought is that I really don't think this is a healthy behavior. When moving to a new limit you need to adjust to the new style of play. Unless the play at your last limit is completely robotic (in which case I would think you should have moved up a while ago) it's going to get confusing to be multi-tasking.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is "unhealthy" really. However, if you don't think it works for you then fine. It is just a sugggestion for an approach that may work for some people. My view is also that when you move up, while the play changes somewhat it does not change as dramatically as you might think and people can tend to get too caught up in the stakes and the nominal dollar swings that ersult. For example, I will scope out "good" $5/10 Party games that play pretty much the same as the $3/6 games. Theoretically, I could find 4 such tables but still not feel comfortable playing all four at once because of bankroll concerns. However, this blended approach might lessen that concern.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, and perhaps I'm behind the times, but the only difference I see between single- and multi tabling is the number of hands played per hour (and the attention you have available). You could also achieve this "hybrid" effect by playing a half hour of pure 3/6 followed by a half hour of pure 5/10.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would work as well.