200nl vs 100nl 6max

[poorfish]

I have been beating 100nl for about 5.7 BB/100 for the last 26k hands. Is this sufficient win rate to move up to 200nl and is there a significant skill level difference between 100nl and 200nl?

[Renton]

It depends on the casino.

At partypoker there is an amazingly discernable difference in skill.

[Miffed22001]

if you have the br move up and give it a shot

[dsaxton]

The players are noticeably better at $200NL, but everyone still sucks.

If you can play straightforward tagg poker and can make basic laydowns, then you can beat $200NL very easily.

[poorfish]

Thanks I think I will give it a shot by trying 1 to 2 tables of 2oo nl (currnetly quad table 100nl) as soon as my party bankroll hits 5k. Currently 4.5k with 1k in netteller.

[andr3w321]

Thanks I think I will give it a shot by trying 1 to 2 tables of 2oo nl (currnetly quad table 100nl) as soon as my party bankroll hits 5k. Currently 4.5k with 1k in netteller.

You're more than sufficiently rolled. I would just give it a go now and if you drop below 4k go back to 100nl for a bit.

[UG]

"it depends" Depends on the poker room, your skill level, how ready (or "un-scared" you are to move up in stakes), etc...

I ran about 4.8ptbb/100 after 30k hands at NL100 on Party

I've run about 5.7ptbb/100 after 30k hands at NL200 on Party



I struggled the first few times I tried to move up. Then I got the hang of it.

Others (even those that are killing the NL600 to NL2000 games) were not able to beat NL200 at a very high rate after quite a few hands.

[natdang]

got the same problem, I'm rolled at about 6k, but I'm pretty scared

[mcatdog]

200NL is quite a bit harder than 100NL, ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. I've tried and failed to move up twice and now I'm taking the plunge again. Played for 2 hours tonight and made 1.5 buyins, so that's a good start.

What I've noticed is that 200NL is the first level at which table selection becomes a huge factor. At 100NL I could expect to be the best player at almost any table I sat down, at 200NL there are a number of good players who I think might have an edge against me. If you're at a table with 3 or 4 good players, leave that table immediately even if it hurts your ego to admit defeat. But there are plenty of fishy tables as others have pointed out, find them and you'll be OK. What I look for in a table is at least 2 fish who I have good position against. If there's just 1, and the others are good players, there's a risk that you'll sit there waiting to bust the fish and meanwhile slowly give your money to the TAGs. It goes without saying that if the 1 fish has a big stack and he's a maniac with a VPIP of like 85% then I'll stay at the table no matter what.

[WildBobAA]

party 200NL 6 max is a BITCH

[Greedo017]

i normally play 100nl 6 max, figured i'd give 200nl a shot, played 300 hands at one table tonight, this is my impression.

Even the fish who come and go with quarter/half stacks are not nearly as reckless as at 100nl. the players aren't as gay, they haven't been minraising me every flop. You would have to really work to stack someone, I don't know that I did all night and i ended up pretty decent, whereas at 100nl some dumbass would probably felt his a3o before the night was over. my table consisted of calling stations and weak/tight bitches. I have a feeling it is just this table that is playing this bad, but there's my experience on the night.

[Cocco_Bill]

i normally play 100nl 6 max, figured i'd give 200nl a shot.

i immediately do notice, the players are much more conservative and much less idiotic. but this table at least, they call WAY too much and will fold WAY too easily. i hope this is the standard and not just a great tbale. i would much rather play against weak/tights than the reckless aggression i see at 100nl.

Party 200NL 6-max is a lot of things, but it ain't weak tight.