How many hands did you typically play per stake?

Yes I know there are so many variables involved in this question but I am curious. How many hands did you play at 2nl, 5nl, 10nl etc, before moving up, and what was your bank roll at that point. I have read where some will move up to 5nl when they have a BR of 20 bi's for 5nl and 30 for 10nl etc. Others say 20 bi's for any stake.

What is your story? Did you start off with on a major heater and find you were suddenly rolled for the next level even though you only played a small sampling of hands at the current limit. If so did you move up or stay put and put in the time.

Hey regs give me your take. Is there a minimum # of hands a noobie should play at a particular stake? I'm talking true noobies because we all know there are exceptions such as the guy who's played brick and morter or home games for years and is just transitioning to internet poker.

I myself have been at 2nl for what seems like forever. I had planned to move up just after Christmas with my BR at $150. Then on Christmas eve I took a class on "Why you don't play poker while all fucked up on holiday spirits." I have now put in right around 35k hands and hope to move up to 5nl near the end of the month which should put me at about 40k hands and a BR of $120. At that point I will move up but I will stick to a 5bi stoploss. I will not play at 5nl if I go below $100 cuz I do not want to go through this again!

It's different for every person.

We can do some math to try to predict it tho.

Suppose we have $100 and we're playing $5nl at 20 buyins, we want to move up to $10nl at 25 buyins. So we need $150 more. If our edge is 5ptbb/100, we make 5 big bets (.50) per 100 hands. If we play 500 hand sessions, that's 2.50 per session, so it will take us 60 sessions to get to 10nl.

If you just moved up you might want to just subtract a little from the edge you had at the previous limit rather than take a small sample set at the new limit (which might be a loss anyway).

I like moving up when you have the roll to do so AND you have beaten the previous level for a decent amount over a decent sample.

In both cases the exact numbers will depend on the individual.

An example might be that once you hit 5NL, you move to 10NL when your roll is at least $250 AND you have played at least 20K hands at 5NL with a winrate of at least 4ptBB/100.

Tailor numbers to suit.

It is different for every person. My experience went something like this:

I started at 10NL/25NL. My BR for that came from SnGs. I played at 25 NL what seemed to me forever because I was two tabling and getting used to online poker cash games. After maybe 35k hands of two tabling, I had the BR to move up to .25/.50 and got used to cash games online. I began four tabling and 50NL played a lot like 25NL plus I ran hot and only after about 15k hands I had 30 buyins at 100NL and moved up.

100NL was a complete different game than anything else I played and I had to stay at 100NL for a very long time and relearn the game to be able to beat it. Not sure how many hands I did there, around 100k ezily. 200NL is also different from 100NL and you have to learn and improve a lot from 100NL to be able to beat it.

Basically, the higher you go up, the more time and effort you have to spend at a certain stake to get good enough to move up, which results you doing more hands. This is true atleast in my experience.

I average about 4 before I go broke.

hands???

yeah.

I'm purely a $s person. If I have the roll according to my BRM plan I move up. Number of hands per stake is irrelevant to me.

the number of hands is completely irrelevant and is only dependent on your learning curve...

start at 2NL and win your way up... you're clearly doing something wrong if you're having problems winning a given stake... that's what everyone here is for... to help each other....

worry more about beating the level you're at now rather than how long it takes you to do it...

If you're not a pro, play at a level you're comfortable with.

If you start out at $25 NL and drop a grand learning the game, you'll learn faster than if you start out in smaller games.

Well, I've logged close to 30k hands at 2nl now, and my roll is close to $80 (starting at $10) so I'm almost ready to move up. I've been beating it for a decent clip, so I know I'm ready to move up, just waiting for the bankroll to hit $100. Then once I reach $200-250 I'll start to take shots at 10nl.

It's been said before, # of hands isn't really important. You should be able to beat the stake you are playing at and have a BR that can sustain losses at the next level.

Why not consider taking a full shot at 5nl? You can afford to lose 14 buy-ins (see below) and still be properly rolled for 2nl.

Problem with taking a 4 BI stop-loss shot is that you are sick of being stuck at 2nl and don't want to go back there. So, it'd be easy to play scared with the 4 BIs you're risking. Also:

I) you run bad: it's probably common to have a 4 BI downswing
II) you play bad: you're not giving yourself any room for mistakes! You should be allowed - and are probably expected - to make mistakes when moving up, but if you aren't going to spend any appreciable length of time there, how can you expect to learn from them?

Spenda posted an article here a few weeks ago that probably answers a lot of your questions:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ou-t81658.html

I'm just looking and you're beating 2nl for about 6.5 ptBB/100 ?

That sound spretty good.

If you took a full shot, would you really expect to lose 10 BIs?

What's the difference in standard between 2nl and 5nl?

Spenda posted an article here a few weeks ago that probably answers a lot of your questions:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ou-t81658.html

[/quote]

As stacks would say "Oh dat search feature!"

Sorry guys

Originally Posted by Fnord

If you're not a pro, play at a level you're comfortable with.

If you start out at $25 NL and drop a grand learning the game, you'll learn faster than if you start out in smaller games.

I can't agree with that. I think it's better to learn the game gradually. The ultra-micros are riddled with fish, so total ABC straight-foreward poker will bring the best results. When you move up you have to start learning to steal blinds, float, learn when not to c-bet and so forth.
Plus you won't have to dig yourself out of a $1k hole when you finally get it.


Anyway, for me it went something like this:
~50k @ 5NL and $3 sng's - played mostly sng's. Build up to a couple of hundred, went on a downswing and built up again. Maybe worth mentioning that I played something like 35/25 for most of that. Then joined FTR, got my shit together. I knew I was spewing much earlier. Every time I went below $100 I started to tighten up and started to build up very fast... at some point I realized it would probably be smart to always play like that, and not only when I'm stuck.

30k @ 10NL
15k @ 20NL (lol heaterments)
50k @ 50NL so far

Originally Posted by loonychune

What's the difference in standard between 2nl and 5nl?

in 2NL the players don't know where the fold button is...

in 5NL the players know where it is... they just don't press it... if they do it's a misclick...

My advice may sound a little different from everyone elses but here it goes.

But to start at the moment I currently play min of 18-24 tables running in 1000 hands per hour. But this was not how I started read below maybe this helps.

I started out playing nl2 with a $100 roll online. I got the money when I was dealing at a live local game. As I began to play I began mutli tabling. My Poker Tracker software was bunk at the time so I don't know how many hands I played. I played here until I made my roll into $300 and then moved to nl5. At this point I was playing 12-15 tables so as I played. I realized I needed a bigger bankroll than the 20-30 buy in's normally quoted for cash game play. I have probably played 360K at nl5 and had boosted my roll over the 1.5k mark. I was running roughly 9/100bb over 300k hands.

Normally I think a +3/100 over 100k hands is a good point to determine if you are winning at that level or not. I do not know if the correct version is +3 ptbb/100 or just standard +3/100.

I stayed at nl5 for a while longer taking shots. I changed my bankroll requirements which after I started mult-tabling from 50 buy in's to 100 buy in's. I reached 100 buy in's for nl25 and took a shot. The previous level I was playing at was deepstacked so it took a session or so to adjust to 100 bb's vs 200bb's. I rolled 70k hands only to see that I was running at -.02/100. And then ran into a two session 12 buy in downswing. You should have seen my ev line . Anyway despite the cooler downswing I realized that there were some big holes in my game so I moved to the nl 10 level. Which was the first level with 100bb's but had the same max buy in as nl5. To see if I could find the leaks in my game and recoup some of my losses.

But for me achieving at least 3/100 over 100k hands is a start to know I can beat a level. Not just hit a heater and think I can beat a level because now I am rolled for the next. And move up and get busto'ed.

Also at these lower stakes were say at nl10 1bb=.10 3/100=.30 so a 3/100 winrate over 100k hands should show you a profit of $300 over your bankroll.

Something to consider also, is an example over last week I played 30k hands and during the weekend I got coolered to the point were I was -12 buy in's below my ev line. So even though you might not have the achieved results over your hands dosn't mean you cannot beat a level if you have evidence as such things as this. But I wouldn't use this mainly as an example of why you are not beating a level or not.

good lord infamous!!! talk about some seriously conservative roll management... you must have an insane database...

12 buy-ins is a huge swing for any level <10NL IMO... i never had a swing larger than $90.00 (3 consecutive day net loss) in my journey from 2NL to 10NL and i've had to go through that journey twice since i had to make a withdraw...

post stats?...

I think his roll is so conservative just for the simple fact that he massively multitables (which I think is a bad idea at these stakes. You should probably play 6-8 MAX so you can plug your leaks easier. Plus you need to learn to play like a human, not a bot )

Originally Posted by dranger7070

I think his roll is so conservative just for the simple fact that he massively multitables (which I think is a bad idea at these stakes. You should probably play 6-8 MAX so you can plug your leaks easier. Plus you need to learn to play like a human, not a bot )

Yeah, I've been playing like a bot for a while now, and while it pays the bills, my game has stagnated, I'm having to relearn how to not be a bot.

Expectation is a funny thing. We make plans based on it, but we know we can't count on it.

Originally Posted by dranger7070

I think his roll is so conservative just for the simple fact that he massively multitables (which I think is a bad idea at these stakes. You should probably play 6-8 MAX so you can plug your leaks easier. Plus you need to learn to play like a human, not a bot )

Yes sometimes I play only 8 tables to play more like a humanoid being and my winrate goes up but have not taken enough time to see if it beats my hudbot playing style. The one thing I know for sure has suffered is my vpip/pfr stats. For some reason it seems harder to keep my pfr % up the more tables I play.

Originally Posted by xX zorrito Xx

12 buy-ins is a huge swing for any level <10NL IMO...

Not if you're paying 10% rake and/or are learning the game.

Originally Posted by xX zorrito Xx

good lord infamous!!! talk about some seriously conservative roll management... you must have an insane database...

12 buy-ins is a huge swing for any level <10NL IMO... i never had a swing larger than $90.00 (3 consecutive day net loss) in my journey from 2NL to 10NL and i've had to go through that journey twice since i had to make a withdraw...

My Holdem Manager encountered some kind of error when I returned from working out of town. But since Dec 1last year I have 312k hands in current database. Older results were also kept written and on my blog.

As far as downswings go I know it may seem hard to think you could lose 12 buy in's but sometimes the deck goes cold for you. I'll admit that out of those 12 there were two that were tilt induced. But the rest were solid money in %75-%80+ fav's. But usually at this point I turn off the computer and go cry in the bathroom like a man

Getting it in good is just one of many revenue streams. So many players just don't understand that.

If I'm taking small pots and blinds off you and pissing you off, I can afford to get it in bad (but hopefully live) and certainly expect action when you're second best and take a stand.


..or in my live game I can pick off a pot here and there while the table goes gamble crazy and still get it in good with a fair number of my best hands.