Moving up limits

So I am a relatively new player (about 2 years but not consistent play each month) and have been fairly successful. I have learned how to calculate odds and really have concentrated at tables and tried to put people on hands. My luck has been ok, with some notable outdraws but nothing too terrible. I was wondering what would be a sufficient bankroll to play the 2-5 nl, 5-5, 5-10 nl, 10-20 limit, and 20-40 limit games. I am not playing as a job but I am serious enough to play every weekend if possible and try to make some good money on the side. I was wondering if you would recommend online more or AC as I live on the east coast. Online seems to have less rake but I am not sure if I totally trust keeping a large amount of money online. Please also advise the location of good games down in AC for the higher stakes. Thanks again.

[AKQJ10]

Accumulated wisdom about moving up:
http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Beg...d_I_move_up.3F

Accumulated wisdom about bankroll:
http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Bankroll

As always everyone's invited to edit the text there.

Keep in mind that, say, B&M $10/20 plays MUCH looser than online $10/20. On the other hand, multitabling, more hands per hour, and no tips mean that you may* earn more at online $2/4 than at B&M $10/20.

I'll defer to those who play AC mid-limits, but I'd imagine they'll cite the
Borgata and possibly the Taj. The Borg is certainly more pleasant to play in.

*Edited for emphasis.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Stick to live play. Learn to scout games and read people. Be willing to play lower when the game you really want isn't that great. You'll get fewer hands in playing live, and pay more rake, but in the long run you'll make more per hand, and get more meaningful learning and experience, and more overall satisfaction from live play than you EVER will online.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
you may earn more at online $2/4 than at B&M $10/20.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ace, you know I respect you but I think this is a very misleading statement, especially to a newbie who's not familiar with the detailed differences between live and online play.

You might make more MULTITABLING at like four 2-4 tables online than you will in a 10-20 live, MIGHT. But "hand for hand," despite the tips and rake, you cannot beat live play, and it's not even close.

I personally think it's easier to beat terrible players in a live game than it is to beat fairly decent players multitabling in lower limits online.

al

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you may earn more at online $2/4 than at B&M $10/20.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ace, you know I respect you but I think this is a very misleading statement, especially to a newbie who's not familiar with the detailed differences between live and online play.

You might make more MULTITABLING at like four 2-4 tables online than you will in a 10-20 live, MIGHT. But "hand for hand," despite the tips and rake, you cannot beat live play, and it's not even close.

I personally think it's easier to beat terrible players in a live game than it is to beat fairly decent players multitabling in lower limits online.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair points -- I was trying to be balanced in presenting both sides of the argument, not trying to jimmy the data.

If it hasn't timed out, I'll edit it to make the claim seem more in doubt.

The Wikipedia FAQ for beginners needs a section on keeping records.

Thanks for the responses. Right now I can probably use about $1500 towards poker. I feel that the lower limits like 3/6 are literally a waste of time with very few good players (which unfortunately leads to numerous outdraws for me). So I was thinking of playing the 6/12 at the borgata or the 2/5 nl game. Also thought about the taj and trop and foxwoods. Any words about either of these places other than wikipedia? Who has the most regulars etc? Weakest games I would assume borgata but i am not sure. Thanks again.

[bobbyi]

I think it's good to play both live and online. My main problem with playing live is that between the time it takes to drive to the casino and the time I spend waiting for a seat in the game I want to play, there is such a heavy "tax" that I pay in terms of time spent for each session, even though per hour the games are quite profitable once you're actually playing.If you've never played online before, you should definitely start small and work your way up, so having a lot of money online shouldn't be an issue for now anyway as you are best of putting on a fairly small amount and starting in small games.

The games you discuss have very different bankroll requirements. A 20/40 limit game would require at least $12k and ideally more to sustain yourself indefinitely assuming you are a solidly winning player. The $2/5 NL game would require substantially less than, but I don't know exctly how much because I'm not much of an NL player.

[AKQJ10]

Good suggestion!

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the responses. Right now I can probably use about $1500 towards poker. I feel that the lower limits like 3/6 are literally a waste of time with very few good players (which unfortunately leads to numerous outdraws for me). So I was thinking of playing the 6/12 at the borgata or the 2/5 nl game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just be aware that playing with a 125 big bet bankroll at $6/12 limit (not sure about the min buyin for 2-5 NL) means that you could play well but have a few bad hours and be without a bankroll. If that's ok with you -- if you'll go back to online, save up some more money, or what have you then go for it. You've read the "conventional wisdom" of 300 so there's no need to belabor it -- you can get by on less if you're willing to curtail your poker playing or move down as needed. Just be advised that a 100 bb downswing isn't all that rare and doesn't mean you're not playing well.