It's been about 2 and a 1/2 months and 43k hands since I started playing $50NL and I now have the bankroll to start playing $100NL. The journey through this stake is a bit of a good news, bad news story. The bad news is that in some respects it seemed easier to make money @ $25NL than $50NL. The OVERALL jump up seemed at least twice as hard in terms of long term profits. Even for players who could routinely and soundly beat $50NL for a high win-rate, I couldn't help but think they could probably beat $25NL for more than twice as much. Actually, my overall results as they compare to JUST no limit aren't that different when looking @ $25NL and $50NL. In fact, $50NL is a hair higher. The real difference is very pronounced @ pot limit. Over 5k hands, I've been beating $25NL @ 30 bb/100 or 15 ptbb/100 but @ $50NL over roughly the same sample size, I've been LOSING 8 bb/100 or 4 ptbb/100. Granted, all sample sizes are small plus I play much more no limit, but it's still curious. I have some general ideas why $50NL is tougher, but why pot limit would be so different is not immediately apparent to me. At the end of the day, though, the good news is that I have been able to win @ $50NL and one can never be too discouraged when they are winning.

Through this level, I had an internal battle with myself about how much should I play $50NL or $25NL? On one hand, it was hard to walk away from $25NL completely since it was consistently bringing in the money and even faster than $50NL. The +EV part of my poker brain wanted to keep playing $25NL for that reason because why play tougher, harder, less profitable games when easier, softer, more profitable games are available even if it is $25NL? On the other hand, I didn't want to abandon my current task of playing and beating $50NL and felt like I might be sacrificing long term profits for short term ones. I only need to be half as successful @ $50NL than $25NL and only a quarter as successful at $100NL than $25NL to just break even. Maybe if I had topped out @ $50NL, it would be correct to calibrate to the stake or best games yielding me the most profits like $25NL. But, my goal is to see "How High can You Get"?

I went back and forth several times @ first JUST playing $50NL, then both, then only $50NL, and then both again. The argument was always the same - easier games or challenge yourself and get better? Although I could probably change my mind again, I think I like the idea of playing more than one stake IF there is a choice to get into better games. Poker Pro WiltOnTilt has said in one of his videos that it is a good idea to play across multiple stakes and to not think of yourself as JUST a $200NL player or JUST a $50NL player. Instead, be open to several stakes so long as you are bankrolled to play them. I also think the more I move up, the tougher good table selection becomes and I don't want to limit my options as much. There were many times when there just weren't what I considered profitable games going @ $50NL, at least when comparing them to the available $25NL tables. But, on the other hand, I did tend to always favor the $50NL tables when good ones were available. There will always be a part of me that WANTS to just play the highest games, so when conditions were right, I would sometimes have all $50NL tables running.

Even though I have the bankroll, I have decided NOT to move up to $100NL yet. There are a couple of reasons for this:

#1, of the $1500 I earned to get rolled for $100NL, 46% is from $50NL, 39% is from $25NL, and 15% is from bonuses. I'd like to earn the full $1500 from $50NL to prove with more certainly to myself that I can beat this level consistently. Some players measure success @ a level by number of hands played yielding a positive return, but, I tend to do so by BUY-INS earned. If you don't play a crazy number of tables, which I don't, and you can earn 30 full buy-ins at any stake, odds are that you're a winner.

#2, Bankroll management rules don't give me much flexibility at the beginning of a stake due to the 5% stop loss. I have a hard and fast rule that you should NEVER lose more than 5% of your entire bankroll in any one day. If you move up to a stake with 30 BUY-INS, you can only lose 1 and a half buy-ins and even less if you start losing right off the bat. This hasn't been a big issue in the past as I haven't had any big problems starting out. But, as the competition gets better, table selection gets tougher, and the fish fewer, more flexibility and bankroll piece of mind goes a longer way. So, if and when I earn the full $1500 @ $50NL, I'll be sitting near 38 buy-ins for $100NL counting my $25NL and bonus money. I'll probably make a point to earn an even 40 buy-ins so my daily stop loss starting out @ $100NL will be 2 buy-ins. That will give me full daily shots as far as stop losses are concerned plus a lot of general bankroll cushion which goes a long way for tilt management and staying in the right head space.

Even IF and when I move up to $100NL, I will probably continue play both $50NL and $100NL for a while to pick the juiciest games of both stakes. I don't know what the games will be like, so it's still possible $25NL will be an option, but part of me is hoping there will be enough at those two stakes to keep me happy. If the less juicy game trend continues, I'll definitely need some options. I may consider depositing on Full Tilt to improve my chances at the best game selection where I should also be eligible for a first time deposit and rakeback.

So, off I go to attempt to complete the bankroll I'd like to have before moving up or lose trying and get knocked back down to $25NL ... hopefully the former.