Some questions about the 25$ NL tables

[Atropos]

Hey folks,
My bankroll is now at 460$ and I think this is nearly sufficient for the 25$ NL games at party. Now I have some questions, since I dont know very much about NL, only have 10k hands 0.01/0.02 NL experience.

1) Are starting hands and raising hands requirements nearly the same as in limit??
2) The 25$ NL games are surely more profitable than 0.50/1 limit, but how high is a typical standard deviation?
3) Are ~ 18 buyins enough?
4) Is notes-keeping and reading players very important? Is it easy to play 4 tables like in 0.50/1 limit?
5) Should I look for the tables with the highest average pots like in limit?
6) In how far do I have to losen up in the 6max games? How profitable are the 6max games in comparison with the full games?? How is the standard deviation there?

Every other useful piece of information is highly appreciated.

[SkippingGoat]

1) In a full game:
EP: Raise AA,KK,QQ,AK Limp JJ-22, AQ, KQs
MP: Raise AA,KK,QQ, JJ (limping is OK too w/ JJ) AK, AQs (if first raiser) Limp TT-22, AQo, AJ, KQ, QJs, JTs, ATs-A7s, suited connectors if stacks are reasonably deep.
LP: Same as MP but you can now limp almost any two broadway cards and any suited connectors as well as Axs

Obviously some peoples' opinions will differ but I think most will agree with almost everything. Obivously your raising standard should be based on the action in front of you. If you're first in the pot you may want to raise AQo. If there's a raiser in front of you you may want to fold it.

2) SD isn't terribly high if you're playing tight. I wouldn't expect to go on more than a 6 stack skid unless you're playing poorly. Most decent players can average over 10BB/100hands.

3) At this level, definitely yes.

4) Taking notes is important but it will be hard to do quad tabling. Basically you want to be able to identify the 2 or 3 suckers at the table and the 2 or 3 rocks. If you're new to NL, I'd play only 2 tables until decisions start becoming automatic in which case you can move up to 3-4 tables without a big problem.

5) Yes.

6) I think 6max tables are considerably more profitable than full games. You're going to be the blind 1/3 of the time so that alone will force you to play more hands. I'd say your raising standards should drop when you're first in the pot but you're calling standards should remain similar. At the 6max you'll have to bluff and take shots at the pot with 2nd or 3rd pair much more often than in full games. If you try to nut peddle you'll generally be blinded to death. As you're playing a lot more hands the SD at 6max tables will be higher but 18 buy-ins will still be more than enough if you're playing well.

[Atropos]

"2) SD isn't terribly high if you're playing tight. I wouldn't expect to go on more than a 6 stack skid unless you're playing poorly. Most decent players can average over 10BB/100hands."

You have some pt numbers for this?? In limit my standard deviation is 15.10BB/100, my winrate is 4.33BB/100, is the relation in nl the same, meaning if you make 10BB/100 you had a SD of 30BB/100?? That would seem like very much.

[SkippingGoat]

My SD for full games and 6max are 26 and 29BB/100 respectively.

It does seem like a lot but consider that .25/.5 NL is going to be much higher action than .5/1 limit.

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Are starting hands and raising hands requirements nearly the same as in limit??

[/ QUOTE ]
They're a bit different. What's playable is a bit more table dependant than at LHE. At some tables there's no way to play drawing hands profitably, at others, you'll be constantly given the odds AND getting paid off when you make it. This especially true of 6-max tables. You'll start to understand the playability of different hands, from different positions, in different situations as you get more table time. Look at how many players there are to the flop, for how many bets, and how many more bets go in post-flop, in common situations.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The 25$ NL games are surely more profitable than 0.50/1 limit, but how high is a typical standard deviation?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what's typical, but my nl25 full table dev/100 is $46.64, and my win/100 is $17.07. That's across 24,500 hands, and ithe std. dev. could certainly be made lower by being a bit more of a nut-peddler than I can stand to be.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Are ~ 18 buyins enough?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on too many things to answer accurately. I'd certainly feel comfortable playing nl25 with 18 buy-ins, but I also have a lot of full table nl25 experience (plus a mess more of bigger nl) The biggest person to person difference with regards to deviation is your susceptibility to tilt. NL/PL tilt makes limit tilt look like a bargain.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Is notes-keeping and reading players very important? Is it easy to play 4 tables like in 0.50/1 limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
You should be able to recognize, at a minimum, the maniacs and the nut peddlers. In NL, it's even more importantl to notice how your opponents play their draws and their big made hands. At NL25 you could fly blind, but this isn't going to be useful if you want to move to mid/high stakes NL.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Should I look for the tables with the highest average pots like in limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
In general, these tables are fine, but what you really want as a beginner is a table with loose-passive players. The people who will call pot-sized and 2/3 pot sized bets while chasing a flush draw. LAGs are more difficult to play against in NL, unless you adopt a boring 'only the nuts' strategy. As always, big pots are good, but you need to understand why they're big, and if you're equipped to compete in them.

My only other piece of advice is to get ready for some comparatively expensive beats. If you're used to 0.5/1, then you've probably never lost a $75 stack after somebody called your turn all-in with a flush draw, and got there.

[Atropos]

"My only other piece of advice is to get ready for some comparatively expensive beats. If you're used to 0.5/1, then you've probably never lost a $75 stack after somebody called your turn all-in with a flush draw, and got there. "

Well I wanted to change to NL since the constant suckouts are annoying me. Of course the bad beats will be more expensive, but do they really occur as often as in limit? I mean you have much more chances to protect your hand + it seems there are less callers preflop --> less chances to be outflopped.

[mosch]

They certainly don't happen as often, since you can routinely force opponents to either give you the pot, or make an enormous mistake. The issue is that when they happen, they're far more expensive. If you're susceptible to tilt, this can be a bad thing.

NLHE certainly isn't a game like LHE or Omaha, where at the lower limits, it's essentially a drawing competition.

[Atropos]

I'm rather totally immunte to tilt, when playing 4 tables at a time I have no time to get angry [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ctv1116]

Exactly. This was exactly my mentality playing SH limit. Although losing your buy-in at one table could certainly affect your play at the other 3.

[Dov]

If you really believe this, then you should expect to see your first glimpse of tilt soon after you start playing NL.

I hope you won't still deny it when it happens. If you do, it will take you WEEKS of work to recover. Do not take tilt lightly. Nobody is immune.

Just my humble opinion.