Move up levels? Q for the pros

El Stuntman

something that has set my mind to wondering for a while; why do quite a lot of the pros that post on here never move up levels? I've been reading here for about two years and quite a few of the pros have never moved up levels in this time.

I'm thinking mainly of the ones who play 1/2 or thereabouts. No names mentioned but it's quite easy for any regular to think of at least 5 offhand.

To my mind there are several possible reasons:

- levels above 1/2 are too hard i.e. they can't beat them

- they are in some sort of comfort zone at 1/2 where they can beat the game quite efficiently for a monthly 'salary' and don't see the need to challenge themselves at higher levels

- possible non-poker reasons e.g. playing underolled due to sports betting degeneracy/psychological (fear) etc

would be interested in responses as I frequently read comments by some players and think 'why the hell aren't you playing 10/20NL?' when they are plodding along at 1/2. Surely the prospective rewards outweigh the risks?

El Stuntman

El Stuntman wrote: »

something that has set my mind to wondering for a while; why do quite a lot of the pros that post on here never move up levels? I've been reading here for about two years and quite a few of the pros have never moved up levels in this time.

I'm thinking mainly of the ones who play 1/2 or thereabouts. No names mentioned but it's quite easy for any regular to think of at least 5 offhand.

To my mind there are several possible reasons:

- levels above 1/2 are too hard i.e. they can't beat them

- they are in some sort of comfort zone at 1/2 where they can beat the game quite efficiently for a monthly 'salary' and don't see the need to challenge themselves at higher levels

- possible non-poker reasons e.g. playing underolled due to sports beeting degeneracy/psychological (fear) etc

would be interested in responses as I frequently read comments by some players and think 'why the hell aren't you playing 10/20NL?' when they are plodding along at 1/2.

Bingo imo..

They play it as it generates the income they want/need, can take hits as well as windfalls, and it doesn't get messy on downswings.

(this coming from a 1c/2c 'er )

ollyk1

Maybe its hard to build a roll and live on it???

Maybe people get lazy and once they've made X in a month they blow it all on hookers and coke?

Maybe they just aren't that good??

mewso

I'd say it's all to spite Marq.

ianmc38

I play 65% 2/4, 25% 3/6 and 10% 5/10.

I'm well overrolled for 5/10.

The reason I still play 2/4 and 3/6 as my main games are:

1. Much softer games
2. More fish
3. More game availability (certainly on the site whrre I play most of my poker)
4. Less stress
5. less variance

The thing about 5/10 is it is a very very tough level to beat. 95% of games are made up of regulars, most of whome have very few leaks. I'm sure I could be a 2bb/100 winner in the games, but that just feels like hard work. At 2/4 and 3/6 I can clear 5bb/100 over 8-12 tables fairly handily with much less stress and far less difficult decisions.

I know there are other people who are the same. I even know people who've moved down from 10/20 to 2/4 and 3/6 for the same reasons.

Thats the why for me anyways. That and I'm a bankroll nit!

RoadSweeper

I think, its living of your income makes roll building much harder.

Macspower

I think I fit this bill quite well......

wouldn't call myself a pro but I have lived off poker for the last 18 months...

I comfortably beat all levels up to 1/2 and have found it hard to build a roll as I constantly withdraw to live.... 1/2 provides me with a consistant income....

Recently I got some paid work and managed not to withdraw last month making me comfortably rolled for 2/4 with about 15 k in roll.....

Disaster followed by horrible downswing!!! I'm prob not good enough to beat 400nl.... but felt like I was taking beats for huge pots ....which I was but noticed I was also playing tighter at 14/11 rather than my usual 22/16....

so moved back to 1/2 realised I was still able to play poker and was capable of beating it and decided to stab at 2/4 again last few days... see graph for results!!!

I found 400nl full of nits on i-poker but as I said it might be just an excuse that I'm not as good as I thought I was.....

I've now had a couple of days break not by choice but due to a family bereavement.... so will give it rest until the weekend and back I go again to 200nl where I am comfortable.... maybe some day,....

ianmc38

paul 4k hands is nothing. if you play 50k hands at 2/4 and lose then you can be sure you need to adjust your game.

the games have been fantastic the past 2 weeks. Best theyve been in 4 or 5 months.

Macspower

ianmc38 wrote: »

paul 4k hands is nothing. if you play 50k hands at 2/4 and lose then you can be sure you need to adjust your game.

the games have been fantastic the past 2 weeks. Best theyve been in 4 or 5 months.

prob due to me adding value?

Mr.Plough

Ian what do you think is required to be able to beat 1000nl and up for a good amount, that the regs at 2-4 and 3-6 don't have? Alot more creativity? I guess this comes down to the argument that you can learn to beat up to 2-4 but need innate ability to beat higher levels

cooker3

Well for me I need to know I can beat a level before I move up. I could play higher as in I easily have the roll but not beating 1-2 to level I want amongst other things
But I hope/expect to be playing and beating 2-4 by the end of summer.

ianmc38

The difference is simply a thought process imo. Most people who beat 2/4 inc me for a long time have no thought process in a hand and can just beat the games by playing robotically. The Phil Galfond article you are bad at poker is an excellent starting point in terms of a good thought process.

cardshark202

ianmc38 wrote: »

The thing about 5/10 is it is a very very tough level to beat. 95% of games are made up of regulars, most of whome have very few leaks.

Thats cos you suck lol

phantom_lord

gonna try and 400nl my main game this month.

NickyOD

I'm ridiculously protective of my roll so I don't move up until I'm seriously well funded for it and then I tend not to give myself a fair crack of the whip if I run bad early on. I tend to straddle a lot between 1-2 and 2-4 and do pretty well but when I have played 2-4 exclusively for an extended period I've struggled to maintain the same profit. I'm well aware that this is partly down to my ability as a player so I just need to push myself harder.

I'm also playing a lot less than I used to, I live with my girlfriend and have more responsibilities now than when I lived on my own so I'm less inclined to take risks and feel reasonably comfortably simply doing enough to pay the bills. I see myself playing mostly 2-4 and 3-6 later in the year though. The way things are going with online cash I think most pros will have have to soon enough.

Hawk Eye

This is something i'm been thinking about for awhile now. I've been playing 2/4-3/6 for well over a year now 4-5 tabling and it frustrates me bordering on depression that I've very little to show for it over that length of time. Ian's correct w/ the 5 benefits he layed out but I think theres many downsides to sticking it out at the same limits.

Firstly it inevitably stunts your growth as a player. You lose interest in the game if you're playing the same regulars, winning the same $ every week. It just becomes monotonous and mundane. If you want to improve at the game shot-taking is a must. Tougher and more aggro competition will only help your game. You shouldn't look at the short term variance of taking shots and that you're risking a bigger chunk of your bankroll rather see it as a long term investment. That is as long as you're going over HH's and keeping detailed notes on regulars to try and get a better insight into what it takes to beat the higher stakes.

I can understand why someone stays at the same levels if they have mouths to feed, bills to pay and the other stressful implications but see no reason why the young guns (18-25yo) are not regularly shot-taking. On that note 2knl here I come:pac:

NickyOD

Mr.Plough wrote: »

Ian what do you think is required to be able to beat 1000nl and up for a good amount, that the regs at 2-4 and 3-6 don't have? Alot more creativity? I guess this comes down to the argument that you can learn to beat up to 2-4 but need innate ability to beat higher levels

I think it's mainly down to being able to outwit your opponents, think faster than them and adjust quicker than they do. If fast playing sets against certain players isn't working then make the adjustment at the right time, same goes with bluffing. Playing 2-4 and above is more about playing the player than playing according to your own playbook which for the most part works well at 1-2 and below.

If you take an example where two very good players are 3-betting each-other a lot. They both have to think about the next step their opponent will take, i.e. cold call the 3-bet, 4-bet light, tighten up or loosen up their opening range, then after he adapts to this adjustments what's the most logical next step and so on and so on. So one player adjusts better than the other, possibly 5-betting all-in with crap or slow playing or cold calling and moving the flop with ATC. This is what higher stakes are all about. Note taking and memory retrieval also probably immensely important.

dannydiamond

ianmc38 wrote: »

The Phil Galfond article you are bad at poker is an excellent starting point in terms of a good thought process.

Link anyone?

Donkathon

can some one please tell me how do i post a tread pleeeeeeeeease

Hawk Eye

dannydiamond wrote: »

Link anyone?

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/You-are-BAD-at-Poker-Phil-Galfond-735.htm

DeadParrot

Hawk Eye wrote: »

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/You-are-BAD-at-Poker-Phil-Galfond-735.htm

great article

dannydiamond

Thanks hawk eye,that's a good read i liked his chat with Bill.

jbravado

Yep really good article.

Mr.Plough

Heres the rest of them, RJ linked them to me a while ago. Definitely worth going through.

Mid to High Stakes: Open Your Mind

G-Bucks

You Call the Shots

You Are bad at Poker...yes, you.

You are BAD at Poker

Everybody Wants to be a Hero

Extra Credit - Poker Class is in Session

Check....I raise

Why

Doc Farrell

NickyOD wrote: »

I see myself playing mostly 2-4 and 3-6 later in the year though. The way things are going with online cash I think most pros will have have to soon enough.

what do you mean by this Nicky?

ArmaniJeanss

Doc Farrell wrote: »

what do you mean by this Nicky?

Collapse of the mighty dollar ?

Tony3004

very good articles from galfond. make you think ...... but when multi tabling alot of info processing (talking out loud lol)to be done .

as a young un just arriving up the limits SLOWLY. it would be better to try and phase these thing s in slowly as not to confuse

currently playing .50/$1 and doing ok and am finding it hard enough to make the step up to 1-2 and am beaten by these games regularly. these article will help me alot if i can apply them . good stuff

NickyOD

Doc Farrell wrote: »

what do you mean by this Nicky?

The games are just getting more populated with tougher players, it's that simple. Also strength of the dollar, inflation and potentially an economic recession world wide means your winnings at 1-2 just wont go as far as they used to.

Hitman Actual

NickyOD wrote: »

The games are just getting more populated with tougher players, it's that simple.

That's a good point. It really depressed me when Robin Lacey posted that he would play more 3/6 than 5/10 these days because it's less stressful. What hope do the rest of us have of moving to 3/6 when the 5/10 winners are dropping down!

El Stuntman

NickyOD wrote: »

The games are just getting more populated with tougher players, it's that simple. Also strength of the dollar, inflation and potentially an economic recession world wide means your winnings at 1-2 just wont go as far as they used to.

Nicky, does this mean that:

- there are less players now playing online? (any way of tracking this?)
- the ones that are left are generally better i.e. fewer fish feeding the sharks?

surely the end result will be an online player pool primarily populated by good players and many of today's pros, if they cannot improve and adjust to these tougher conditions, will have to quit poker?

I was thinking of taking up online play again but reading this thread has made me have second thoughts...

eagle eye

El Stuntman wrote: »

Nicky, does this mean that:

- there are less players now playing online? (any way of tracking this?)
- the ones that are left are generally better i.e. fewer fish feeding the sharks?

surely the end result will be an online player pool primarily populated by good players and many of today's pros, if they cannot improve and adjust to these tougher conditions, will have to quit poker?

I was thinking of taking up online play again but reading this thread has made me have second thoughts...

lmfao. You are some baby, start a thread and then finish it like this. :D:D:D