Thoughts on seeking your own level

[dfscott]

I'll caveat this entire post with the fact that this is all idle speculation and not based on any hard data (nor a significant amount of personal experience), so I welcome any feedback and/or opposing views...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that as long as you have X buy-ins (pick a value for X, but 50 seems to be pretty common), that it's worth moving up to the next level. Of course, you can always take a shot a bit earlier, but I'm taking about your "home" level here.

But the question remains of determining what is the best place (for a given individual) to play. Specifically, does it make sense to pound away at a higher level, just barely breaking even, or should one move down when success doesn't come over a reasonable period (say Y tournaments -- feel free to suggest a value for Y). Staying at a higher level has the benefits of learning to play against tougher competition, although sometimes the lesson gets lost if you can't understand why your opponents are beating you. There's also the human element that it's much more frustrating to play when you're barely breaking even.

Moving back down when you don't have success at a higher level has the advantage of more satisfying play, but it seems that you also might be sacrificing the learning experience of playing against tougher competition (yes, I know that this contradicts what I said in the previous paragraph, but it's because I'm not really sure the value of the learning, so I'm flip-flopping on the issue). You may be able to win, despite serious flaws in your game, and for most people, it requires much more discipline to self-examine when you're winning. There's also the trick of trying to determine when to take another shot. Say you rebuild, move up again, and run hot at the new level -- are you really ready?

I think the root of this issue is that it's really hard to know what level you have the ability to beat until you play a significant amount of games, and most people aren't willing (or emotionally able) to play that many games at a level where they start off breaking even (or losing). The cycle then becomes:

1) Get BR for new level
2) Start playing new level
3) If you run hot -- stay at new level. Goto #5
4) If you run cold -- get frustrated (or BR-damaged) and move back down. Goto #1
5) Restart cycle at higher level

Looking at it this way, someone who has the skills to only beat the 11s (but no higher) could run hot, move up to the 22s, run hot some more, move the 33s, and then run cold (or average) and suddenly find themselves back at the 11s (and probably broke and/or shell-shocked to boot). By the same token, someone with the skills to beat the 100s could get mired at a lower level because they ran so cold that they were forced to move down due to BR (or more likely, emotional distress).

I think the reason for this is because most people aren't willing to stick it out at a level for those Y number of tournaments required to get a "true" picture of your ability. As a result, except of the truly long-term players, most people are playing the level that they're currently playing more due to accidents of positive and negative variation.

[Scuba Chuck]

Are you posting a question, or just some thoughts?

My own analysis of your thoughts are this:

Those are the risks folks.

[Sidekick]

Most people recommend at least 30 buy ins for a comfortable BR, but I'm in the at least 50 buy in club myself.

However... and this is the biggie for me. You play at the level that you are cofortable with. I have the BR to be playing at the $50s, but I don't because I'm not comfortable at that level.

I still play at the $20s because I am just now getting to the point where I'm nearly indifferent to how things turn out and just examine how well I played or didn't play in the tournament.

To me it's a trap for people to move up every time they can simply because they have accumulated the BR to move up to the next level. A great many people think their skills are greater than they are due to running well over a moderate period of time. Hot and cold streaks or even just above average runs (to me these are the most dangerous for people) often lead people to believe that they are ready to move up, when in fact they aren't.

I am always trying to examine my game and improve it, even when I enter a smaller limit tournament I am always looking at how I play and trying to ignore the results. Over time if I play well I will win money.

Find your comfort zone and play at that level. IMO you move up when you have beaten a certain level over an extended period of time and know that you are outplaying your opponents at your current level. If you are just playing as well as your opponents at your current level, but are winning, then it is a mistake to move up IMO.

These are of course just my own thoughts on the matter.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people recommend at least 30 buy ins for a comfortable BR, but I'm in the at least 50 buy in club myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

now, dont get me wrong, i take shots ALL the time, especially when there seems to be little hope of me winning. however, at the level i play COMFORTABLY, i like to have 100x the buyin. this lets you have a little bit of breathing room if you manage to go on an absolutely terrible run. at everything over the 55s, i think you will find even 50 or 60 a bit tight for movement. holla

[gumpzilla]

It's an interesting question you pose.

I think the key is that it's important to honestly assess when you move up and start breaking even or losing money over your first 50 or so SNGs whether you really think you're running badly or are just being outclassed by the new level of competition. Are you getting your money in in good spots? Are you putting your opponents on reasonably accurate hand ranges?

[Sidekick]

I actually have a 150 buy in BR and use 100 buy ins minimum for myself. But when people ask, I recommend at least 50 rather than the 30 that I typically see.

Bad runs can happen to anyone no matter how good they are. I require at least a 100 buy in BR for me to be comfortable, but most people seem to be able to get by on less.

[pbrmeasap]

This is just me so take it for what you will...

I play WAY within my bankroll. I view stt as recreation. My friends needle me about moving up but why? Over the past two years I've cashout for a nice vacation with my wife...Vail is awsome. Along with many weekend golf trips.

I play the 11's. I know, I know that I may be very stupid or nieve about the skill required for higher buy-ins but I'm very comfortable at my current stakes.

My on-line bankroll is my bankroll. I never want to reload. This has has worked for me for the past 19 months. Don't get me wrong I've set goals for myself such as "When I reach x buy-ins for the 22's I'll move." When I reach x it never fails that I continue playing where I feel comfortable...I'm a pussy. But, I take pride looking at my cashier page knowing that I won't go broke and I still put some in my pocket.

I set goals to move but I'll probably always be stuck in the 11's. My slippers are comfy. Call me risk adverse aka pussy.

pbr

[FieryJustice]

I totally agree with the 100 buyin idea for the higher levels. The swings are really crazy. As for what level to play, I guess I would say to play at a level that you are obviously bankrolled for, but also a level where it hurts a little, but not too much, to lose the money. I know that if I decided to move from playing $215's to 55s or even 109s, I care much less about the money. I am then playing simply to play. Maybe it is just me, but I guess I get some gratification from making money and not simply winning. Also, if I was to move up, say to the step 5's, i'm sure right now the money would matter a lot to me and I would almost play with scared money. I am not sure, because I have not tried it, but I think that might be what would happen. Also, you obviously have to be skilled enough to play at any level and I am starting to think that the skill level required to beat the games are about the same once you reach a certain level, namely the $109s. I think if you can beat them, you can also beat the 215's and 1065s as long as you play soundly. The only difference is the number of solid players at the table. I could be wrong though, considering i have been told I will be broke witin a year.

Jcardshark

[Sidekick]

Not that it matters to you or anyone else, but... I think you have the correct attitude. Playing at the level you are comfortable and happy with is not being a wimp, but part of playing smart poker.

Most folks tend to play better poker when they aren't stressing over the level at which they play.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you posting a question, or just some thoughts?

My own analysis of your thoughts are this:

Those are the risks folks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's mainly just some conclusions I've drawn and I'm wondering if anyone agrees, disagrees, or feels that it's irrelavant.