Ever do this during a 'down swing' ???

[ezinestein]

Hello,

I was wondering... has anyone ever... or ever even thought about moving up a limit during a down swing?

Here's what I'm thinking for example...

Let's say you normally beat the .50/1 tables at party for 4 to 5 BB/100 playing two tables.

Let's say you're on a 80BB down swing since starting a bonus.

If I go up to single tabling $2/$4 while 80BB down... and play well and no tilt... wouldn't it make sense that you'd have to eventually recover from the down swing?

I mean... you can't go down forever unless you're a losing player. Assuming I'm not... that would mean that I would eventually have to make back those 80BB... so why not make them back at four times the amount?

At least make 20BB back at $2/$4... then you're even money. Then drop back to $.50/$1.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

In order to never get your money back... you'd have to stay on the down swing for the rest of your life.

Make sense?

I welcome all comments about this notion.

Kindly,
EZ

[usmfan]

For that matter, why not move up to 15/30? Make your money back quicker.

[BusterStacks]

Incorrect. Thinking like this implies that you can accurately say you are "on" a downswing, when in reality, you have only been on one up to this point. I recommend reading "Inside the Poker Mind" by John Feeney. It will explain quite a bit about this type of thing.

[kelvin474]

yeah. i've done it.

Did it matter? not really.

You should move up a limit independent of your recent results. If you think your bankroll and skill can earn more at a higher limit, move up. Everyone's utility function is a little different so you'd have to decide for yourself.

However, I can state there is no EV to be gained by moving up in limits which is attributable to having been losing recently.

[umdpoker]

i think a lot of people do this. however, there is no statistical validity to being due for a rush. more often than not, you will make a comeback, just because a winning player is always more likely than not to win. this, of course, assumes that you don't move up to a level where you are no longer a winning player.

[ezinestein]

[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why not move up to 15/30? Make your money back quicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

usfman,

What a stupid thing to say! I'm fairly certain the difference between play at .50/1 and 2/4 is much closer than .50/1 and 15/30. 15/30 would virtually be a different game whereas 2/4 would not.

Thanks to the other posters who took the time to respond with useful thoughts on this matter!

Kindly,
EZ

[HRFats]

This is the "due" theory. I need to keep betting (and bet MORE money per hand) because I'm DUE

[BusterStacks]

2/4 is perhaps the closest in limits to being like .5/1. At 1/2 or 3/6 you would get run over if you played your .5/1 game. Either way, your thesis is incorrect, you are thinking in terms of being able to predict when you are going to have an upswing, which is of course impossible.

[moondogg]

There is no reason to suspect your will have an upswing.

There is no reason to suspect that your downswing will end anytime soon.

As we're all aware, the significance of your downswing will fade in time, but this will not be to a significant upswing in the near future. The expected result is that you will grind your way back out of the hole. The result is that hundreds of thousands of hands later (thousands of BB's later), you will have forgotten about this experience.

If you have the skill, bankroll, and risk tolerance to play in a higher game, you should have been playing there all along. If you made to choice not to move up before, and only think that has changed is you now have a smaller bankroll (and possibly less skill due to potential tilt) you definitely should not move up.

It's called chasing your losses. This is what gambling addicts do.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
2/4 is perhaps the closest in limits to being like .5/1. At 1/2 or 3/6 you would get run over if you played your .5/1 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Run over?