2NL -> 5NL Observations

[TheBlueKnave]

Ok, so I did about 8K total hands in 2NL, and (in accordance with proper bankroll management) have "levelled up" to 5NL.

I tried to find the post that said there wasn't much difference between the various micro-stakes levels, but my initial observations at 5NL suggest that there are some BIG differences, at least to players who aren't accustomed to better play.

The main one is less limping.

At 2NL, virtually every table is at least 50% limpers. I think this may be where my other thread about the potential value of limping is: if it's cheap to see a flop & everyone's doing it, then why not? You can continue with better cards. But in 5NL there are very few hands where someone isn't pushing 3BB+. Limping here is just throwing money away. (It may have been at 2NL also, although it had a different dynamic to it. I definitely did better after I stopped limping -- on your advice! Thank you!)

Additionally, I see fewer people chasing draws. One initial tactic that has been successful is to slow-play a medium-strong hand under the guise of chasing a draw. Not enough statistical sample to report long term effect, but I've won a few big (-ish, for me) pots that way. Someone with a medium-weak hand will happily lead me to my donkey doom only to find that my pair of 9's is taking their $2.

On the flip side, I've run into a wide range of responses to a shove. Some people don't want to lose their $5 no matter what, and fold. Others shove back, depending on their read. At 2NL it was fun to all-in because people would call with the most amazingly awful hands. But at 5NL, I think I need to be a lot more careful about what hands I'm aggressive with. If someone shoves back, they probably have me beat.

Anyway, I don't have enough hands to make any firm conclusions, but for other newbs thinking about graduation, those are my initial observations. Be glad to hear other people's thoughts...

(All at PokerStars, BTW.)

[BooG690]

How many hands at 5NL are you basing these observations on?

[dranger7070]

Can't be more than an orbit, imo. Like seriously, no need to get fancy at 5nl by "shoving a wide range" or whatever it is you said. I can show you plenty of posts, graphs, stats, and loltestimonials that 5nl can be beat by playing damn near the exact same as 2nl.

Obvioulsy, as you move up in limits, its going to get more aggressive as you go, thats the name of the game, that doesnt mean u need to lolspew into people with marginal hands. I can play virtually the same game at 10nl as I do at 2nl, and I'll end up with a similar winrate.

Don't think I'm sitting here just criticizing you, I've been there too, just trust those that have been there before you.

[ClairvoyantX]

I must say I understand where Blue Knave is coming from. I'm still at NL2 and when I take a dip in NL5 on occasions (when my discipline/tilt fails), I did find the play bit more challenging. It could be that it was due to tilt, or being underrolled for the level so having some attachment to the money at the table. I'm not sure. But thankfully there are still many god awful people who allow us to turn a profit (hopefully ).

[TheBlueKnave]

Can't be more than an orbit, imo.

What's an orbit? I'm still under 1000 hands.

Like seriously, no need to get fancy at 5nl by "shoving a wide range" or whatever it is you said. I can show you plenty of posts, graphs, stats, and loltestimonials that 5nl can be beat by playing damn near the exact same as 2nl.

Sure, if you're playing 2nl at 10nl level! But when you're a total n00b and you've been playing 2nl just well enough to beat 2nl, and you go to 5nl, you find that the game is a bit different.

I'm sharing my observations from that perspective. I have no doubt that more precise play overall will dominate all the microstakes equally.

Obvioulsy, as you move up in limits, its going to get more aggressive as you go, thats the name of the game, that doesnt mean u need to lolspew into people with marginal hands.

I think what I was trying to say about the 2nl->5nl difference is not that it's more aggressive at all: in some ways its less so. But the aggression is more accurate. At 2nl I don't need to panic that an all-in means a set of aces. It could be a 25 off suit with the outside hope of a straight. So far, I'm not seeing that at 5nl.

Don't think I'm sitting here just criticizing you, I've been there too, just trust those that have been there before you.

I *trust* that when I'm as good as you 2nl->5nl->10nl will all seem equally, charmingly naive. In the meantime, from the point of view of the n00b: trust me. They're not the same!

(I post these posts knowing how I will gnash my teeth in 6 months to read my ignorant, fumbling thoughts. But that's why I write them: because in 6 months, I won't remember the difference. Maybe these horrid off-base notions, and your helpful guidance, will help others. Or maybe it's just a tiresome rehash of stuff you've all been over a hundred thousand times. In which case, I guess it sucks to be you.)

[bjsaust]

An orbit is once around the table for blinds (i.e., if you start in the BB, its one orbit every time the BB gets back to you).

2nl will probably have a few more people who play like its play money, but it shouldnt be much different. Definately shouldnt require any change of playstyle unless your playstyle was pretty terrible to begin with.

[kiwiMark]

To clarify: People aren't so much saying "OMG YOU'RE WRONG WE'VE PLAYED SO MUCH MORE POKER THAN YOU", they're just saying that they think a lot of the changes you perceive in players are in your head, or based on chance, since 1,000 hands of poker is a very small sample.

Post some hands, already!

[tuuk2]

Having graduated through 2nl to 5nl and now on to 10nl, I can assure you that there's not a heck of a lot of difference. The biggest difference is that the pots are larger. In 2nl, your max buy-in is $5 and on 5nl and 10nl, it's $10.

Of course the blinds being higher contributes toward larger pots. I played 2nl and 5nl at nearly the same success rate (about 44bb/100). At 10nl, I'm "only" at 15bb/100. Is it because it's harder? Nope, it's because I had my first significant downturn, something I didn't experience through my 2nl and 5nl playing. I will say this however, I've seen a lot of people who have problems when they first move up and get acclimated to the blinds and the players. At 5nl, I was breakeven for awhile until I made the adjustment.

So like the others are saying, I don't think 5nl is harder, it's just slightly different and after only 1000 hands, you are still in the adjustment phase. Give it time and you'll be saying that the 5nl donks are just LOL ATM machines, handing you money left and right.

[Jason]

If you haven't seen it already and even if you have , in my retrospective "How High Can You Get?", I post about the differences between each stake as I have moved up and my first one was specifically focused on Full Ring $2NL versus $5NL on Poker Stars. The gist of it is that $5NL didn't seem much different than $2NL and that everything seemed a little more exaggerated - tight players tighter, loose players looser, and the like. Although, I admit at first it DID seem a little different and I even got off to a slow start, but most of that was probably just in my head coupled with some natural bad poker luck.

As tuuk alluded to, EVERY time you move up a level it will seem harder or at least much different if for no other reason than because all the dollar amounts have doubled. A routine 3x raise of 6 cents @ $2NL is now a whopping 15 cents @ $5NL! An all-in in shove was $2 and now it's $5 or $5 versus $10 if you buy in deep. When you're used to something for so long, your brain will naturally react differently to those new amounts remembering their value at the lower stakes.

For whatever it's worth, I'm playing $50NL on the cusp of being able to play $100NL - I have the bankroll to play it, but want some more cushion. I beat $5NL better than any of the other stakes including $2NL. But, ultimately, it doesn't matter how well you beat it because you will hopefully not even be there long enough to realize your true win-rate to begin with if such thing could even be measured.

Hope that helps and good luck.

[TheBlueKnave]

If you haven't seen it already and even if you have , in my retrospective "How High Can You Get?", I post about the differences between each stake as I have moved up

Thanks for the pointers, Jason. I appreciate it.

And, as my statistical sample is growing I think I agree completely. My first couple hundred hands were not representative, at least not judged by my second couple hundred hands.

I can't read your articles right now, but look forward to it after work. I'm really enjoying this whole sequence of new discovery, so evaluating my experiences in light of your documentation on the same process should be fun.

And congrats on your progress: I'll be chasing you!

[bigspenda73]

Biggest difference between 2nl and 5nl in white below

at 2nl the BB is $.02, and 5nl the BB is $.05

[Outlaw]

My observation since I've played an insane amount of hands from 2NL to 10NL is that there are differences, but all the players still suck... they just suck in an average different way.

At 10NL they burn their money with a cigarette lighter, at 5NL they burn it with a blow torch, and at 2NL they burn through buy-ins with a flame thrower. Speaking relatively of course.

[Cougar]

Just FYI to OP, lots of peeps are still open limping at 25NL (40/0 for teh win), they have just learned how to fold a little better (most).

[nonofyobiz]

As tuuk alluded to, EVERY time you move up a level it will seem harder or at least much different if for no other reason than because all the dollar amounts have doubled. A routine 3x raise of 6 cents @ $2NL is now a whopping 15 cents @ $5NL! An all-in in shove was $2 and now it's $5 or $5 versus $10 if you buy in deep. When you're used to something for so long, your brain will naturally react differently to those new amounts remembering their value at the lower stakes.

YES...this is the truth. I recently moved up to 5nl and it took me awhile to get comfortable with the bet sizing....like and 4x raise pre with 2 callers, now guy makes a 50 cent bet and your like "holy sh1t i can't call that without the nuts!!"

I see what all the more exp players are saying, they are all bad players at these levels, but i did notice a difference when i moved up too. in fact i went on a downward spiral as soon as i moved up. combination of playing bad and running bad and not really being "into" poker at the time. Anyways, it doesn't take long to adjust and it's just as often i'm saying otu loud "WTF are they doing!?!?!", I'm around 10 k hands - the first 5 k were crap, the last 5 k i'm 15.5 BB/100. HOpefully i can adjust to 10NL sooner, but just as easily.

hopefully 10NL will be

[amir is cool]

if you spent the time that you spend now churning out stupid threads with no point and making useless observations you would be out of these sorts of stakes by now.

[dranger7070]

Lol amir, i <3 ur sig.

[TheBlueKnave]

if you spent the time that you spend now churning out stupid threads with no point and making useless observations you would be out of these sorts of stakes by now.

Ok. Hostility noted.

Over, & out.

[JustinSKS]

i agree with amir

[dranger7070]

i agree with amir

douchebag ITT

[Darth Candy]

The main difference for me and the reason I keep getting knocked down to 2NL(twice so far, about to attempt the third time) is that when I get to 5NL I act and play so differently.

I'm like "Whooo! Look at me, I'm in the big time!" and then I proceed to call junk I'd never call and raise with air, etc.

Hopefully, I can calm my crazy butt down and play solid this time through.

[TheBowlBoy]

The worst thing anybody can do when moving up is to play differently than they were at the level they were just beating. If you can beat 2NL for 15bb/100 you can probably beat 5NL for 10bb/100 and 10NL for 5bb/100 and so on and so forth. Change your play because you've learned something but not because you're at a higher stake because chances are you're just leveling yourself.

[dranger7070]

The worst thing anybody can do when moving up is to play differently than they were at the level they were just beating. If you can beat 2NL for 15bb/100 you can probably beat 5NL for 10bb/100 and 10NL for 5bb/100 and so on and so forth. Change your play because you've learned something but not because you're at a higher stake because chances are you're just leveling yourself.

False imo. It's totally person dependent. I beat 2nl for 13ptbb/100 for my time through, 5nl for 11ptbb/100 the first time through, and i beat 10nl for 10ptbb/100. However, I have a friend that just absolutely crushes 5nl for 10ptbb/100 over a huge sample (he has over 1k in earnings there), but whenever he moves up to 10nl, he breaks even over a large sample. (93k hands) He plays the exact same game, stats are almost identical, etc. He just cn't find traction there. I've sweated him multiple times, but I just don't get it.
Theres a quote floating around the internet that says at some point you will rieach a level where you are no longer able to win. This doesnt apply only to poker (in fact it originated as a business thing, like you can get promote only to a certain point before you become inefficient.) But it obviously applies to poker too. You will eventually get to a point where either you cant beat thelimi or the money is too much, etc.

[ClairvoyantX]

Theres a quote floating around the internet that says at some point you will rieach a level where you are no longer able to win. This doesnt apply only to poker (in fact it originated as a business thing, like you can get promote only to a certain point before you become inefficient.) But it obviously applies to poker too. You will eventually get to a point where either you cant beat thelimi or the money is too much, etc.

I don't think bolded part is right. If you are winning player given infinite time you will advance till you can't advance no more. Ok, there is a possibility you'd have a small profit over a huge sample but that reaching next level might take longer then your lifetime . Touche.

Other part of the post is spot on. Ultimately with anything you top out. Luckily in poker we can always learn and apply new concepts, improve ourselves. Unlike physical sports we are not limited by our bodies (though we are limited by our minds).

[Jason]

I too think you should generally play at the next level the same way you played when you were WINNING at the last level. That's another reason I am such an advocate of proving you've earned money at one level before you move up to the next because the foundation of winning is what you should be building on for the next level. However, you will most likely encounter new player types, plays, and variables you didn't see at your last level, so you have to be fluid enough to open up or change your game and roll with the punches when it is required. So, you will probably end up playing different to varying degrees to continue to be successful. You just don't want to make the mistake of playing different for the sake of playing different because it's higher stakes.