Moving up (and down) in limits: Bankroll ?

[jhall23]

So there are frequently bankroll ?'s, but usually all I see is in regards to how big a roll you need to move up a level. I haven't really ever seen any comments on when it is suggested to drop down if you have a bad run or just can't hack it when you move up a level.

So I am considering using a 20 buy-in rule for my self to play a given roll. The idea is to move up as soon as I have 20 buy-ins for the next level. I haven't yet decided whether I am going to have a minimum number of hands played before I move up just to verify I am actually beating the level. I am pretty conservative so I probably will but Bruiser brought up some good points that moving up to a tougher game may not be best shorterm EV it may help your long term by making you better quicker.

So anyway consider I use 20 buy-ins as my roll. When should I move down. Off the top of my head I am thinking that the 1/2 point (15 buy-ins) that way If I run into a bad run at the next level down it would be less likely to make me drop down an additional level.

Can any of you guys who have gone through different levels comment on this and share your experience when moving up?

Just to note, I initially deposited some money online and my goal is to just work of this and never re-deposit any of my personal money. That is why I would would drop down a level if my roll starts getting depleted. It's not that I couldn't put more money in I just want to keep my "poker money" seperate from everything else so I am being responsible with it. So even if I know I can confidently beat the level I am at I am going to force myself to move down if my bankroll takes a hit.

Thanks!

[DaveduFresne]

Are you a recreational player? From your post I'm pretty sure that you are, but just in case you're not this is important information to know when determining bankroll needs.

Since I've been a winning player, probably the worst run I've had is ten buy ins down. A run that bad is pretty unusual. Perhaps the fact that I multitable smooths things out, although there seems to be an occasional nightmare scenario where I lose on all four tables at once.

Being a recreational player (as I'm assuming you are) going broke isn't the end of the world as it is for a poker pro. However, you still probably want to make money at it, and not have to pay for it without outside money.

What I reccomend is you get forty buy ins for the next level up before moving there. (So for a 400 NL game you need 16K). The reason I say this is because your psychological bankroll is such an important factor to how well you play. You really have to be completely comfortable losing four buy ins at whatever level you decide to play, because runs like this happen all the time if you are at all an aggressive player.

Also, just because you're a winning player at the level you're at now does not necessarily mean you will be at the next level right away. You may even be the fish for a couple of weeks. Play is usually considerably stronger when going up a level. You don't have any notes on players so you may lose a few buy ins before you realize certain guys are only betting with the nuts, and your second nuts are no good against them.

And for me, I tend to play too loose when out of my comfort zone. It goes against what you might think, but at stakes I'm comfortable at, I make the correct laydowns (most of the time) but when I'm uncomfortable, and I've gotten what to me is a lot of money in the pot, I hate to fold and give it away to my opponent, even if my read tells me its the right move.

Its tough to move back down once you moved up a level, because making that kind of money takes twice as long as it did at the higher level, so I reccomend being as prepared as possible before making that leap. Also, now that online pokers been around for awhile, the good players advance up to higher stakes, while if you have been a fairly low stakes player, you may not have had to contend with many seasoned players.

I know twenty sounds like a lot, but if you're conservative like me you may find forty makes for a smoother transition.

Good luck at the tables.

David

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]

Being a recreational player (as I'm assuming you are) going broke isn't the end of the world as it is for a poker pro. However, you still probably want to make money at it, and not have to pay for it without outside money.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear, this somes my situation up pretty good. I have no intention of going pro. I just want to be responsible and never reach back into my wallett to re-finance my poker. Thats not to say that I don't play alot, I do, I just am perfectly well off and happy with my software engineering carreer and would probably lose some lover for the game if I were to play as a semi-pro/pro. My goal is to just keep getting progressivley better at this hobby I really enjoy.

Thanks for the reply,some good stuff to consider.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, just because you're a winning player at the level you're at now does not necessarily mean you will be at the next level right away. You may even be the fish for a couple of weeks. Play is usually considerably stronger when going up a level. You don't have any notes on players so you may lose a few buy ins before you realize certain guys are only betting with the nuts, and your second nuts are no good against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am perfectly aware of this and realize as I start moving out of my comfort zone even if I am winning I may just be having a good run. That is why I think it will be important to drop back down before I get to my required roll to play at the next level down. I figure I need to be able to lose several buy-ins to allow me to keep with my aggressive style

[DaveduFresne]

Glad you found my advice helpful.

I think if you really are able to discipline yourself and move back down at 15 buy ins, you may not need to wait for 40. You just have to be honest with yourself on this one.

Be careful though, it sounds like you have a good career (much better than playing poker for a living I think) and from experience I can tell you big losses can have an adverse affect on you at work, and that's the last thing you want.

Good luck at the tables.

David

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
What I reccomend is you get forty buy ins for the next level up before moving there. (So for a 400 NL game you need 16K).

[/ QUOTE ]

if he is a winning player he doesn't need NEARLY this much. 20 buyins will do.

[DaveduFresne]

Yes, but he's a smallstakes player, and a move one level up is a pretty significant change in the lower stakes.

Just because a person dominates one level, there is no guarantee he will dominate the next.

David

[kagame]

id suggest trying out a new level before completely moving up

that way you can tell if youre outclassed

[Garland]

Here's my description and run so far:

I'm a part-time player who has a full-time job (teaching math, and a Masters student too). My story has been of playing at Ultimate Bet. I play at Party + skins, Prima and Paradise Poker when I have bonuses to clear there. I consider myself a tight, solid, aggressive player who puts the move on sometimes (squeezer with occasional moves, who isn't afraid to experiment). I play extremely within my bankroll, perhaps even to a fault.

First Limit: First I started playing NL50 (100x BB) seriously mainly on Ultimate Bet on April 2004 and moved up to NL100 on June 2004. I had played over 8000 hands, and built up confidence that I could beat the game, but definitely not to my fullest potential (4.2 PTBB/100 hands).

First Move: I definitely was overrolled (built from bonus whoring, limit play, NL play etc.) for that game and moved up to NL100 on June 20, 2004. I played that game off and on for 6 months. During this time, I discovered allowing bluffers to bluff away money and making more gutsy strategic calls of big bets and strategic checks of various flops. On November 22, 2004, I discovered Ultimate History (God, did that save my clicking finger) and GameTime, which has improved my game dramatically. My earn for over 10,000 hands was about 8.12 PTBB/100 hands for this limit.

Second Move: On December 11, 2004, I moved up to NL200. Initally I was killing the game for 3000 or so hands, and earned a total of 13 NL400 Buy-ins I felt was necessary to move up in limits within two weeks (13 because I had reserves from playing other sites). I consulted my friend, who suggested I play at least 10,000 hands before moving up. I thought that was a sound idea, and continued to play it languishing for about 3000 or 4000 hands before inching up to earning 15 NL400 buy-ins by 10,000 hands. My winrate took a hit at 7.31 PTBB/100 hands (for limit of NL200 only), but my confidence was still high. I knew I was ready to move up despite having a bad run for about 3000-4000 hands (really I was stagnant during this time, not going anywhere that much).

Third Move: On March 6, 2005 I ventured into NL400. During all this time, I've been running extremely hot and playing pretty well making solid reads on particular opponents and putting targets on certain opponents and reading hands cold. I have also caught several one and two-outers that have helped my cause along the way. I have now earned well over 20 NL400 buy-ins (or ~14 NL600) at this level with 9,000 hands so far and a winrate of 10.02 PTBB/100 hands for NL400.

Anticipated Fourth and Fifth Move: I am within several weeks of making my next jump to NL600 (100x BB). Obviously, I'm not doing it at Ultimate Bet as they don't offer this. The reason I've been playing at Ultimate Bet is the near bottomless bonus dollars that have basically given me back most of the rake (it's very important for me to maximize profits, and I feel many players downplay the importance of the rake eating at your profits). So now I've signed up at Eurobet as my rakeback site in anticipation of the move hoping the NL600 game is as sweet and profitable (maybe more so?) as the NL400 and NL200 Ultimate Bet games. At least the Party NL200 and NL400 has been very good so far. I'm hoping to jump to NL1000 on Ultimate Bet and Party by the middle of summer. Wish me luck.

Final Note: I haven't had a downswing of more than 2 or 3 buy-ins in all of this time. However, I've only logged ~38,000 NL hands on UB (but probably around 30,000 more NL hands at various limits of no limit games combined at other sites). I continuously hear stories of good solid players losing 5, 10 or more buy-ins and keep anticipating this for myself, but I (a) consider myself very lucky not to have been through that kind of downswing yet and/or (b) know when to muck a strong hand in the right situation and/or (c) know how to push my edges well. I know when the downswing does finally happen, I will have to buck up and play through it. I will move down in limits if the situation warrants. I also know that I have a lot of things to learn yet, and that I appreciate 2+2 and being able to post my hands, get criticism and analyze hands. Without this site and an open mind, I would never have grown in the last one and half years, and be as successful as I am now.

Garland

[doubleas]

I've found that play at Party/Eurobet differs greatly from UB. 2/4 UB is nothing like 400NL at Eurobet in my experience. I'm not suggesting that one is easier than the other, I'm just warning that you may have an adjustment period to look forward to.

[NiceCatch]

There's alot of wisdom in what Mr. DuFresne said. I completely agree that it is much tougher to make those big laydowns (even when you know you should) at the higher levels, just because the amount of money in the pot is significant to your bankroll. I think building to 40 buy-ins is a great idea, and almost a guarantee that whether or not you are ready for the next level, you will be more apt to play correctly in big-pot situations.

I would especially say this is important when making the jump from 1/2NL ($200 max buy-in) to 2/4NL ($400 max buy-in), especially short-handed. The skill level of players at 2/4NL and above is seemingly leaps and bounds ahead of those at 1/2NL, and I've known several very good 1/2NL players who never managed to raise their games, despite very deep bankrolls (~$25k and more).... which is to say that, at the very least, a deep bankroll is a must.