Question about moving up

I was wondering what people's thoughts were on what the actual number of hands played at a certain level should be before moving up? If someone flies through any given level after running hot, should they move up just because they're rolled for it? or should they wait until they've played x number of hands(20k for example)?

I recently took a shot at 100NL 6max with the idea that I'd move back down if I lost 3 buy-ins. After losing those buy-ins and taking a look back, I really feel like I was outplayed by the few decent players that I've been up against.

This all came after I ran real hot basically from the time I first took shots at 50NL FR and 6max.

So the question is, should I just build the BR back to where I'm comfortable to take shots again, or should I sit back for a number of hands and really analize my game? Also, if this was a different level would, the answer be different? I assume they would be.

I think it's fine to take shots as long as you use disciplined BR management. It's always at least slightly different when you move up in levels, and I think the only way to get used to the differences is to move up and actually experience them.

I don't really think it's necessary to play x number of hands at a certain level before moving up. If that were the case, I would still be playing $25NL because I think I've only played 18k hands of 6 max since November 2006.

Courtie, let's make this the taking shots/moving up thread to replace stickified stuff.

Here are my thoughts on moving up/taking shots:

***This if for someone who cannot reload their acct and may not be a good player yet***
1. I would log at least 10k hands at each level
--If you are committed this could be just 1 week of play
2. I would start taking shots when you have 20BI's for the higher level (i.e. $2k for 100nl)
3. I would move up permanently once you have 30BI's for a given level
4. Finally, only move back down if you only have 30BI's left for the lower level.

Using this strategy I have never had to move down in a level and have constantly been moving up. 30 BI's may seem like a lot for a level but that's for a permanent move. That gives you 15BI's of variance if things do not go so well to start.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

...and may not be a good player yet***

This is where I was trying to go with my OP. I hear all the time that 100NL is just as easy as 10NL-50NL, which time will tell if that's the case for me. But without the experience at the lower level(s) I'm concerned in my case that maybe I shouldn't be taking shots at something I'm actually rolled for.

I like all of your points BTW, and will seriously consider sticking around for a bit more at 100NL.

It seems like kind of bad advice to tell someone to play at a higher level based solely on BR. It should be based more on ability. If you are consistently beating your current level over a large enough sample, then move up if BR allows, which it should.

If you move up and find you are consistently getting outplayed, move back down, regain confidence and build up a larger roll to make your next shot to cover the expected losses while adjusting to the new level.

If you are unable to adjust (to low/mid stakes games), then your overall game will probably need some work, so move back down to work on it. Why pay more while learning than you have to?

I think spenda's advice is perfect.

Originally Posted by zook

I think spenda's advice is perfect.

i second that advice. was that for 6max? or would you bump it to 40 BI's for the nits?

i read that one of the women at FTP played a different BR management policy. if she had 3 winning sessions in a row, she moved up. if she had 3 losing sessions in a row, she moved back down. she said it made it extremely tough to stay above any given level. i wouldnt necessarily recommend that policy, but its food for thought. the downside of that is if you hit a real heater, and cruise through 2 or 3 levels...then hit your cooler, you can get wiped out pretty quick.

There are so many variables in terms of BR management, for instance:

1. Reason for playing poker
A. Professionally- I would assume 40-50BI's for a level +6 months of living expenses
B. Side income- 25-30 BI's for a level, move down when you have 30BI's for the lower level
C. Recreationally- 10-15BI's for a level, you're here for fun right? Might as well play as high of a stake as you can
D. Dwarfman-20BBs
2. Playin ability
-How good are you really? What is your true winrate? Have you gotten to where you are today like me (solid winner+rb/bonus) or have you survived solely from bonus/rb?
3. How often do you cashout/plan to cashout?
4. etc
5. etc
6. ...

I'm pretty much in agreement, although I think moving up should strictly be a function of bankroll size rather than how many hands you've logged at any given limit.

Especially at the lower limits, I don't see any reason to prove you can beat 25NL if you're rolled to play 100NL. If you can't beat it and get dropped, so be it.

Most important thing: skill/experience/discipline
Second most important thing: bankroll

Originally Posted by Trashcona

I hear all the time that 100NL is just as easy as 10NL-50NL

This is so, so wrong. 100NL is much harder than any of the lower limits.

with a sound br plan, i doubt hands logged mean too much.

say you use spenda's 30...

like he said, if you have 30 for 100 NL, play there. if you fall to 30 at the 50 NL tables, you move down there. if you fall farther to 30 at the 25's, move down again.

theoretically, it would take a very LONG time to go completely busto. you would also be logging a ton of hands along the way against "theoretically" worse and worse competiton. and it would also take a very long time to work your way back up again.

i can only assume it would take thousands upon thousands of hands if this were actually happening to someone. but, the actual hands shouldnt matter due to the length of time it would take to move up and down the limits. whatever your number of hands you wanted to log, you would certainly surpass that goal along the way...if you stayed disciplined to the "30 Rule."

oh, and maybe 2 years ago 100 NL was almost as easy as 25, but it was still more aggressive...and still is. lots of players have moved down limits due to the US regs, and chasing the fishies dwindling bankrolls.

Originally Posted by Trashcona

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

...and may not be a good player yet***

This is where I was trying to go with my OP. I hear all the time that 100NL is just as easy as 10NL-50NL,

This is a fallacy that is spreading just too damn fast. No one in their right mind will seriously claim that $100NL is as easy as $10NL. If they do they know nothing. (They can, for instance, say that they FIND it as easy which isn't the same thing).

Quite simply there are better players the higher you go, but that's not to say that all the players are better, nor even that the worst players are necessarily better.

What has been said, and I would endorse, is that there's a fairly straightforward way of playing which will make you a winner at $10NL and will make you a winner at $100NL.
Above that you MAY have to add extra levels of thinking to your play to get by. Maybe.

But the fact that the same play beats both $10NL and $100NL doesn't mean it beats it to the same degree. And what is of more significant for a beginner is that $10NL players in general tend to punish mistakes a loooot less than $100NL and therefore you'll make more while ironing them out.

As for BR management I do like the idea of taking shots early and making the definitive move a little later.
Spenda's 30BI suggestion is just about the best strategy for handling the nightmare that is moving up through the micro/low stakes.