|
DrivingDog
|
02-03-2008, 08:24 PM
Post subject: multiple levels
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 923
|
|
I used to play exclusively at .50/1. Then exclusively at 1/2. Then 2/4. Every once in awhile I would 'take a stab' at a higher level. I'd think 'I need to play different here' and I would. I'd play bad/scared/too aggressive and consequently I'd lose money. Eventually I figured out that the reason I was losing wasn't because my game was bad, but because i wasn't playing my game.
Now instead of sticking to one level, I look for good tables at any level, and play pretty much the same no matter what level it is. First, I look for any good tables at 10/20. Then 5/10, etc. down to 2/4 and sometimes 1/2. My reasoning is that if there is one, preferably two, or even better, 3 or more bad players at a given table, and you can get a good seat relative to them, then it doesn't really matter if the others are all sharks or just average. The fish and maniacs are going to send you their money.
Example: today I got to sit at a 10/20 table where the guy on my immediate right was 60/30/2.5, and the guy two seats down on my right was 80/20/1.5. So Fishy would limp in with Q3o, Maniac would raise with J7o, and I would 3bet with AK. And they would both pay me off when the K hit (and Maniac might put in a couple of raises for good measure). Eventually, Fishy went broke and Maniac left and I walked away with a nice little profit. Seriously, how often do you get a seat like this at 1/2?
Does anyone else use this multi-level strategy? I just wonder because I always hear people talking about how they've been playing at x/x level for x amount of time, they're thinking of moving up or trying to build a bankroll, etc., and it seems to me if some bad players happen to have enough money to play at higher stakes, why not get in on the action? Really, it seems like a better plan is to look for good games at a range of levels, rather than just at the one you're most comfortable with. I'm not saying I'm going to sit down at a 500/1000 table just because a fish does, but it seems to me that playing one level exclusively really limits your opportunities.
Any thoughts?
|
|
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." (George Bush).
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
KoRnholio
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,165
|
|
I think as long as your bankroll can handle the occasional jump up to level x/y and your seat selection is good, why not.
This is really something that I should/would get into. But for the most part the crypto games hardly ever have full ring above 2/4.
|
|
Some days it feels like I've been standing forever, waiting for the bank teller to return so I can cash in all these Sklansky Bucks.
|
|
dsaxton
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 2,667
|
|
I think an argument for playing only one level is that you "should" play the highest beatable limit for which you are bankrolled since this will tend to maximize profit (unless, of course, your edge is compromised so much that you make less money than at a lower limit) . Obviously this is based purely on hourly earn considerations, and most poker players are concerned with more than just making money. You could argue that playing different levels allows you to play against a wider range of opponents, and in this way helps you develop a more well-rounded game.
|
|
|
|
Hermann the Lombard
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 270
|
|
Yes, as long as your bankroll can handle it and as long as your nerves can handle it. That's where playing "bad/scared/too aggressive" can emerge. Couple that with variance and you may not be able to tell self-destruction from being outplayed. [Now here I am gearing up myself and my bankroll for .25/.50! I have a ways to go!!]
|
|
Oh, no! Not another learning experience!
|
|
arborman
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 300
|
|
Personally I have a bankroll determined upper level beyond which I won't venture until I have the 300BB trigger. But I routinely pick tables at varying levels below that based on availability and game selection.
I usually play 4 tables, all or none of which can be .5-1, .25-.5 or .1-.2, though for bonus clearing purposes I try not to drop into the dime limits with more than one table.
If and when I break the 300BB level for 1-2, I'll add it to the mix, but that doesn't mean I won't play a juicy .5-1 or .25-.5 table when it is possible.
Taking shots upwards can be risky, as it tends to be a large proportion of a player's bankroll. But picking good tables is and should be the primary consideration when playing poker, so I see nothing wrong with playing a lower limit at a good table.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
