2 parts: Difficulty of Online NL Tables and Roll Mgmt.

This is a 2-part question/discussion post. First, I am curious what everyone's opinions are on the quality of bankroll management philosophy I currently use and advise for other low stakes players. Second, I am curious at what point the field of online NL cash games becomes competitive enough to reduce expected hourly rates. It's a little bit long, but that's due to my inept writing style - so bear with me.

I recently encountered a good week at the .10/.25 $25 Buyin NL tables. I had already built up a solid cushion in my roll, and was then up to 16 buyins for the next stakes - .25/.50 $50 Buyin NL tables. I try to follow Rilla's bankroll strategy of 20 buyins, but I don't see anything wrong with a player using a portion of their winnings to test out the next limit of tables. This only applies to my philosophy if two things are true:

1) The player has already built up a bankroll cushion above the 20 buyin recommendation for his current stakes.
2) The player will only use a portion of their winnings, or a small percentage of their current bankroll, before moving down.

I feel this philosophy is very helpful for micro and low stakes play, because it breaks the monotony of the grind. With the incredibly loose, maniacally aggressive field that composes the majority of micro/low stakes cash games, a profitable player generally has to nut camp to expect a good hourly rate. This restrictive style of play, and the increased proportional bad beats in the hands a player shows down, can quickly frustrate or bore even the most diligent player.

Once both the bankroll and ability to beat the current game is already established, taking small stabs at the next stakes can release the tension, boredom, and monotony from the current game. Plus, if the player discovers that the next stakes is still beatable, and has a good enough first session, he is now that much closer to moving up. To re-iterate an important point, this form of bankroll management is only valid if you set a pre-defined loss limit for your next stakes, almost treating your buyins as test/play money. Otherwise, two things could happen. First, you could play scared if you psychologically attach it to your overall bankroll. Second, you could keep playing at the higher limit until you go broke ... and that is not bankroll management at all.

What are your thoughts on this form of bankroll management?
Do you consider it too risky? Common sense? Unorthodox?
Any feedback is appreciated.

The second part of my post is a more personal question. I applied this same strategy to my own game. Like I said, I had already built up a cusion in my roll, and knew with certainty that my current game was beatable. So I took $200 (4 buyins for .25/.50 NL), mentally separated it from my overall bankroll, and tried out the next stakes. I came to the same conclusions as I did when I moved up from $10 to $25 -- that the game was still incredibly soft. Players were slightly less maniacal than before, but generally still loose-passive, with fish outnumbering in great quantity the sharks.

So, at what point does the game actually improve enough to reduce your hourly rates? I have found that my hourly rate has actually increased relative the stakes I am playing, which I attribute to a minor increase in my game and the (generally) same weak game of the fish. I know this kind of improvment couldn't last forever, or every semi-solid amateur would quit his day job and start making $50k+ a year playing poker. Does anyone have experience at which point the game actually tightens up enough to reduce your hourly rate?

taking shots is fine, given the parameters you have. As you say, it's healthy even.

On the game getting harder, it's going to hit everyone at a different time. Worry about it when it happens to you. If you don't go looking for the magic table you can't sit at because the players 'got good', maybe you won't ever find it.

Like I said, I had already built up a cusion in my roll, and knew with certainty that my current game was beatable.

Knowing that a game is beatable with any certainty requires a lot of hands. By the time you've played enough hands at a level to truly know that you're beating it, you would probably be bankrolled for the next level (especially if you play with bonuses and/or rakeback).

That said, taking shots is ok in my book if you have the discipline to move back down.

20 buyins really isn't enough for NLHE. If you really had a big edge in the game and the money was easily replenishable, this would be an exception. As is though, moving up every time you have 20 buyins is how a lot of people go busto. Keep in mind that the games were considerably softer back when rilla wrote that guide (I'm not disputing that the lower limit games are still very easy), and not to mention the fact that rilla actually did go busto.

There's nothing wrong with taking shots, but IMO, you should have significantly more buyins for your main game and the same applies for the stakes you're taking shots at, under most conditions.

Lukie makes some strong points.

FWIW, we still say you should have 20buyins rolls, and i think for small stakes players that should be enough considering your time spent at these stakes shouldnt equal enough hands to go through a major downswing (we would hope)
For me, i began to expand my roll at 100nl, where i used 25buy ins and not 20. I then add five for each stakes i move up, while setting that i wouldnt use anything less than $50k to take a shot at moving into the 1knl game.
However, one of the things about playing medium stakes games is that you be rolled to play 400nl for example, but their may be no good games so you end up sitting in 200nl games. SO you are nowhere near using the full extent of your roll.
The opposite also applies. On 2+2 their is an old post about how its ok to start taking shots at 100nl if you have $1500 and are running pretty well. I think this has some merit, if you re running good/playing good/too good for current stakes, why not move into a game where you expect to have a positive expectation based on your current results. Obviously you may be running good, bu there is nothing wrong with extending the risk a touch. So yeah, i agree with this.

The only problem would be that when you are still a n00bie player, a few bad beats can cause you to play bigger stakes on tilt trying to make all that money back, and force you into busto territory (i know ive been there)
So thats why we force the 20buyin rule down everybodies neck because the last thing we want to see is someone busto. Slower progress than desired > BUSTO!

FWIW, on winrates you can maintain 5bbs/100 at 100nl and probably maintain double that at 25nl over a decent sample.
There is very little difference online between 25nl and 100nl, you should be able to beat both quite easily. However, dont rush moving up as you will find players at 100nl who know how to fold. At 200nl you will find definite regular winners when theb game becomes at least 'challenging' and not a case of 'am i running good or not'

Originally Posted by Miffed

On 2+2 their is an old post about how its ok to start taking shots at 100nl if you have $1500 and are running pretty well.

In that same article, it talks about never thinking of yourself as a certain stakes player. It states that by calling yourself, or thinking of yourself, as a $50NL player for example, can cause you to hesitate to move down as well for reasons like, when there are no good tables, adapting to a new site, losing several buyins or when your confidence takes a hit. It's more about taking your shots when you feel confident in your play, and moving down when things don't go well. When they do, you can easily end up with the proper roll for that stake. For example, you have $850 in your roll, that's 34 buy ins at $25NL, and only 17 at $50NL. You can afford to lose 3 or 4 buyins taking your shot at $50NL, and if things go bad you would still have 30 buy ins at $25NL. If you hit a couple pots and have a decent run, you now are rolled for $50NL legitimately. But if you think of yourself as a $50NL player now exclusively, look out if you have a couple buy-ins downswing. You need to re-evaluate constantly, What stakes your at, and what's your roll.

Middle stakes players are much better at this than low limit players. They will play the $200, $400 or $600NL tables. Wherever the juciest game is. If your favorite fish has redeposited and is sitting at a higher stake and you can afford a buy in or two, go get him. Just don't lose 5 buy ins trying to get his. I've taken 2 shots at a $100NL table already. Lost a buy in on the first attempt, QQ to KJo, when my set became his str8, and I'm waiting to take another shot.

OP, I really don't think you understand the diference between aggression and passivity:

With the incredibly loose, maniacally aggressive field that composes the majority of micro/low stakes cash games

Micro/low stakes games (up to $50NL for sure, maybe $100) are absolutely not manically aggressive! 25NL may be looser than average - 10NL certainly is - but passivity is the norm. Aggression = more raises and bets than checks and calls - this is definitively not the case below $50NL.

Players were slightly less maniacal than before, but generally still loose-passive

This is the sentence that confirmed you hadn't just made a typo. Maniacs are aggressive, not passive! Seriously, this is a key concept. You may understand the actuality but don't confuser yourself or others by misusing the terminology.

Originally Posted by biondino

OP, I really don't think you understand the diference between aggression and passivity:

With the incredibly loose, maniacally aggressive field that composes the majority of micro/low stakes cash games

Micro/low stakes games (up to $50NL for sure, maybe $100) are absolutely not manically aggressive! 25NL may be looser than average - 10NL certainly is - but passivity is the norm. Aggression = more raises and bets than checks and calls - this is definitively not the case below $50NL.

Players were slightly less maniacal than before, but generally still loose-passive

This is the sentence that confirmed you hadn't just made a typo. Maniacs are aggressive, not passive! Seriously, this is a key concept. You may understand the actuality but don't confuser yourself or others by misusing the terminology.

I was actually going to point this out, but I'm almost at the point where I've given up on trying to explain the difference between playing loose and playing aggressive. Same applies to your average tight-aggressive, solid low stakes player (and by that, we obviously mean your tight-passive, nitty, set-hunting regular).

Lukie, I assume your refering to the 20/10/2.0 player that everyone aims to be at $25NL amirite? Do you have a prefered set of stats for the $25NL and $50NL players here? I ask because I'm working on my aggresion Numbers and definitly need to be more selectively aggresive. I know that the AF number is not the only number to base it on, is there specific #'s on particular streets that you aim for? Is it just feel and reads?

Originally Posted by biondino

Micro/low stakes games (up to $50NL for sure, maybe $100) are absolutely not manically aggressive! 25NL may be looser than average - 10NL certainly is - but passivity is the norm. Aggression = more raises and bets than checks and calls - this is definitively not the case below $50NL.

Sorry about the confusion here, I didn't explain what I meant by incredibly loose, maniacally aggressive. At $10 and $25 NL my biggest profits come from two types of players: the loose-passive fish, and the pyscho maniac. By incredibly loose, I mean the check-call, check-call, check-fold types that we all love. By maniacally aggressive, I mean those types that go all-in to steal the blinds, all-in to bluff you out of the pot, re-raise your preflop raise for half your stack, etc.

I was describing two different types of players who make up the majority of the same game, but didn't take the time to clarify between the two of them. And it could be my limited time at the $25 tables -- I have only played ~9k hands there, but that is the playing field that I have seen.