|
shysti
|
03-20-2006, 09:36 PM
Post subject: Stick to what I know Or start ring games?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Internetz
Posts: 838
|
|
As a strictly tournament player, I've been thinking about trying ring games a bit, but I really have no idea on the bankroll requirements, what levels to play at etc etc. I have some newb questions regarding this subject.
For example, when someone says they are playing 400nl referring to ring games, what are the blinds at this level? I feel so stupid asking this
I am going to deposit like 300 to 400 in two days on my stars account, and I was thinking of mixing it up with ring and my usual sngs, is this a good idea or should I just stick to what I know?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
chardrian
|
|
I rarely,if ever, get pms
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,524
|
|
There are some who say you should just master one game and then dominate it.
I think that wading into other games in small stakes can help you in whatever your "master" game is.
For example - my cash games are short handed limit and MTTs. But I have learned some things about position, pot odds, etc. by playing omaha h/l and nl ring. And it's fun to mix things up sometimes too.
In regards to your nl question. The number in front generally refers to the maximum you are allowed to bring to the table. Hence 400nl = $400. The blinds are usually 1/100 of the maximum (in some cases they can be less). So the blinds at 400 nl would be $2/$4.
|
|
|
|
shysti
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Internetz
Posts: 838
|
|
Thanks Chard!
I have to ask who that is in your avatar?
|
|
|
|
chardrian
|
|
I rarely,if ever, get pms
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,524
|
|
read my eyebrows.
|
|
|
|
shysti
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Internetz
Posts: 838
|
|
lol I cant???
|
|
|
|
Warpe
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 3,905
|
|
Play 25nl. I used to play SNGs almost exclusively but find ring a lot more profitable (and interesting, though perhaps not as exciting). Stars has a reputation of being a somewhat tougher game but I don't know if it's deserved. I play SNGs on Stars and ring on Party.
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warpe
Play 25nl. I used to play SNGs almost exclusively but find ring a lot more profitable (and interesting, though perhaps not as exciting). Stars has a reputation of being a somewhat tougher game but I don't know if it's deserved. I play SNGs on Stars and ring on Party.
|
By just browsing the lobbies, I feel like party has a much much larger pool of ring tables going at any given level than stars. This is what has always confused me [well ever since I started caring enough to compare the sites], both sites have very comparable numbers of players on at any given time, but on Party they seem to have more active tables and the SNGs fill up much faster. Is this because a good portion of the stars players are using play money? Or is there really not a difference in number of tables?
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
I started out in tournaments, believe myself to be a decent tournament player (I maintained a very respectable ROI playing the 10/1 sngs on party), but quit recently because I didn't have the bankroll.
You have to have a very large bankroll (comparatively) to play tournaments profitably. You have to be able to weather through weeks without a big cash. Unfortunately though, tournaments are really, really fun and addictive so I'm always trying to manufacture a bogus reason to continue playing them.
Ring on the other hand, is relatively low upkeep. You only need 15 or twenty buyins to play ring safely (as opposed to 40-50 to play sngs or up to 100 to play MTTs) so it offers the most potential to safely make a good bit of money. Sadly though, if you play ring long enough, you essentially become a bot. Ring play is poker in a vacuum, with the environment rarely changing (except, of course, the playing styles of the opponents at your table).
In tournaments you have to constantly be changing to the ever increasing blinds or the ever decreasing number of players, which makes things so interesting and fun.
I have made $1700 in less than three weeks (playing 25nl and 50nl) playing ring, and I honestly don't think I could have made that much in any other way (unless I took down 1st place in a big tourney, but you can't count on that to happen in such a short time).
Bottom line is, if you are capable of making consistant, repetitive, profitable decisions, then ring is for you.
I plan on amassing a very solid bankroll (around 10-15k) and then I am going to allocate a couple thousand of that and get back into tourneys again. I think I will always depend on full ring for consistant, dependable money.
|
|
|
|
shysti
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Internetz
Posts: 838
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renton
I started out in tournaments, believe myself to be a decent tournament player (I maintained a very respectable ROI playing the 10/1 sngs on party), but quit recently because I didn't have the bankroll.
You have to have a very large bankroll (comparatively) to play tournaments profitably. You have to be able to weather through weeks without a big cash. Unfortunately though, tournaments are really, really fun and addictive so I'm always trying to manufacture a bogus reason to continue playing them.
Ring on the other hand, is relatively low upkeep. You only need 15 or twenty buyins to play ring safely (as opposed to 40-50 to play sngs or up to 100 to play MTTs) so it offers the most potential to safely make a good bit of money. Sadly though, if you play ring long enough, you essentially become a bot. Ring play is poker in a vacuum, with the environment rarely changing (except, of course, the playing styles of the opponents at your table).
In tournaments you have to constantly be changing to the ever increasing blinds or the ever decreasing number of players, which makes things so interesting and fun.
I have made $1700 in less than three weeks (playing 25nl and 50nl) playing ring, and I honestly don't think I could have made that much in any other way (unless I took down 1st place in a big tourney, but you can't count on that to happen in such a short time).
Bottom line is, if you are capable of making consistant, repetitive, profitable decisions, then ring is for you.
I plan on amassing a very solid bankroll (around 10-15k) and then I am going to allocate a couple thousand of that and get back into tourneys again. I think I will always depend on full ring for consistant, dependable money.
|
Sounds very interesting I may have to give in and start giving ring a try, but I am still confused on something, if I am playing 25nl what are the blinds for this LoL I feel like such anewb
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
25nl ==== .10/.25 NL
100nl ==== .5/1 NL
and etc.
I would highly recommend you get Poker Tracker and pay close attention to your stats at the beginning. You should run between 10-15 vpip (voluntarily put money in pot FYI). Play a supertight game to begin with and go from there. AA and KK will probably make up at least 35% of your winnings, and flopping sets from pairs will make up a good bit of the rest of that percentage. Players at this level (10NL and 25NL) are dumb as rocks.
|
|
|
|
chardrian
|
|
I rarely,if ever, get pms
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,524
|
|
.10/.25
|
|
|
|
Les_Worm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 1,697
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renton
100nl ==== 1/2 NL
|
At most places 100NL has .5/1 blinds.
For cash games 20 buyins is good for low stakes.
|
The artist formerly known as Knish
Only mediocre players are always at their best.
Phil Ivey Owns You
|
|
dan
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 288
|
|
i was like u once, had a roll of $100 playing $5 - $1 sng's and mtt's...then i started bonuswhoring so i basically needed to play cash games...i started at $25nl and my first 3 sessions i got stacked, i tightened my game up abit and started winning, eventually i got my roll to $1000 from playing $25nl then i moved to $50NL and my roll is sitting at $1300, i strongly suggest u move ur game from Sngs and mtt's to cashgames.
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Les_Worm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renton
100nl ==== 1/2 NL
|
At most places 100NL has .5/1 blinds.
For cash games 20 buyins is good for low stakes.
|
i fixt it
|
|
|
|
bantam222
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 208
|
|
100NL is $100 max buy in, and usually the max buy in is 100 BBs, so just divide that by 100 for the BB, and 200 for the SB
|
|
|
|
shysti
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Internetz
Posts: 838
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dan
i was like u once, had a roll of $100 playing $5 - $1 sng's and mtt's...then i started bonuswhoring so i basically needed to play cash games...i started at $25nl and my first 3 sessions i got stacked, i tightened my game up abit and started winning, eventually i got my roll to $1000 from playing $25nl then i moved to $50NL and my roll is sitting at $1300, i strongly suggest u move ur game from Sngs and mtt's to cashgames.
|
Thanks for the advice but I am a tournament player at the core, that'll never change. I may work on my ring games more though now after all the advice.
|
|
|