Better to start at higher limits if you can?

This discussion topic came up on another site so I thought I'd see people's opinions around here.

Most of us start out with a small or free bankroll and grind it up, learning as we go. However, for some this may not be the way to go if you can fork over a bigger initial investment of a few hundred $$$ and start playing bankrolled for say 25NL or 1.00LHE or higher. Plus you get bigger bonus whoring clearance potential depending on the amount you initially deposit. However, your potential for getting slaughtered is much higher.

So for a beginner player it is likely better to learn at lower limits, or is it? If you can afford to plunk down $300 or more as an initial bankroll, is it a good idea?

Once you know the rules and that a flush beats a straight then you should be playing at the highest levels your bankroll will allow. What that bankroll equals is different for a lot of people and depends on your ability to add more money online.

I've seen wayyy too many people playing over-rolled because they're afraid to lose. Their long-term winnings have suffered.

Caveat: if you live off your bankroll obv things are different.

Whether you are a winner at the stakes you are contemplating playing at is a pretty large facet of this discussion. If I have $1k to drop online to begin playing, but am not a winner at 50nl, then why would I start there?

No bankroll is big enough if you're not a winner in the game you're playing.

I agree it does not matter how much u can put online, if you cant beat the game your playing. I think pepole just need to be honest with themselves, people think they are alot better then they are.

As long as you adhere to good BR management, it doesn't really matter where you start. If you move up or down as your BR dictates, its hard to go broke.

This topic actually comes up a lot indirectly if not directly. I've always been a big advocate of beginning players, EVEN experienced live players who are just starting ONLINE poker, to start @ the BOTTOM. The reason is that Internet poker at even the lowest levels is a reasonably tough game for anyone who is not proficient and experienced with both the game of poker and the online experience of poker. Only 40% of players can make money @ any level, so you have your work cut out for you. With less fish and more resources for players to get better, it's no sure thing for anyone.

The reason I advocate starting @ the bottom is because the ONLY disadvantage to starting out at the bottom is that you MIGHT slow down your progress if you started higher AND succeeded. But, this is only a small concern because IF you are a winning player, it doesn't take long to move up the levels. By contrast if you are NOT a winning player when you start higher, you slow your progress down even more than if you had started @ the bottom PLUS you lose money and pay for the lesson. I read threads here daily about players who struggle @ $10NL, $5NL, and even $2NL.

For 95% plus of the players who want to start higher, they only do so because they have no patience and no concept for how tough the games are. They hear about Durr, Ivey, Krantz, and all the other players making money and just can't get excited about one cent, two cent blinds when they could be making thousands if not millions They think they are better than they actually are like most poker players already do and only want justification to rationalize what they want to do.

Fortunately, they are free to do so and I and other players CONSTANTLY look for these players taking shots, playing scared, and just having no idea what they are doing so I can take them to a little place I like to call Value Town.

^^^ Agree with everything Jason said and just wanted to add that if you are rolled for say 25NL and start at 2NL, there's no reason that you can't just play a few k hands at each level before moving up so long as you're winning along the way.

Good post Jason.

I have one revision, though. From what I've read, only 26% of online players actually win money over a good sample size. And only 8% are solid winners over their career.

i'm guilty of this. spent months jumping between 25NL and 100NL online mostly due to winning pretty regularly at $2.50/5 at a local casino (i consider my live and online rolls separate) which is far softer than almost any 25NL table i've sat on and thinking "if i have an edge in that game this 100nl should be a piece of cake.". wrong. if you are as good as you think you are you will beat the micros pretty promptly anyway. it's worth the experience/reality check in case you arent as good as you think.

Originally Posted by Outlaw

As long as you adhere to good BR management, it doesn't really matter where you start. If you move up or down as your BR dictates, its hard to go broke.

Losing your way down to find the stakes you can win at is one option, but I'm fairly sure its not a good one by anyones measure.