A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

If Bill Gates started to play online poker, and was looking to improve his No-Limit cash game as quickly as possible, would it be best for him to start at the highest cash game he could find? (like say, start out playing 25,50)

(assumptions: he has actively studied the game and read many books, is determined, has grunched/read on this forum, and had unlimited cash, and was smart and a quick learner)

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

What I'm basically trying to ask is, would there be any merit in starting closer to the bottom if cash was of absolutely no concern and skill improvement in the quickest possible time was the only thing that mattered?

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

No.
I would think starting at 1/2 or 2/4 would be the best place to start.
Below that, there is not much value for alot of the plays for anyone with a solid job and the ability to reload their bankroll.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
No.
I would think starting at 1/2 or 2/4 would be the best place to start.
Below that, there is not much value for alot of the plays for anyone with a solid job and the ability to reload their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there's no merit in bothering working your way up (working up from 1-2 to 25-50 is the equivalent of working up from .01-.02 to 25-50, and a winning player at 25-50 would be equally talented at every level no matter where they started?

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

strictly from a financial perspective there is no reason for bill gates to play micro stakes/small stakes. if you've got the cash to spare (i.e. you are quick learner and/or have enough $ to play until you can compete) i see no reason to dink around at lower limits. his best bet would be to start at msnl, play, and then go get a coach.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

If money is no object to someone, I think its pretty obviousy that its best for him/her to play whatever limit they want to play for the rest of their life. If thats the highest limit around, then so be it.

There's differences between limits so wouldn't it make the most sense to spend your time learning the game you're going to be playing. At some point it might be worth it to experiment with different limits/games to learn new skills but he/she should start with what they want to play.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there's no merit in bothering working your way up (working up from 1-2 to 25-50 is the equivalent of working up from .01-.02 to 25-50, and a winning player at 25-50 would be equally talented at every level no matter where they started?

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt highly this is true. The higher you get to the top, the steeper the jump in ability is. Its like football...ya, freshemn year of high school to Sophomore is a big jump, but college to the NFL is a world away.
I understand some people start out in micro-limits, but alot of people dont..or at least not long.
Plus, were talking unlimited bankroll...the amount of money is only relevant because I dont think I could be disciplined enough to not call 1 dollar regardless of the size of the pot...just would be meaningless to me, and def. Bill Gates. There are still enough bad players at NL200 that you can play ABC and still win. You cant do that higher IMO

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

I'd say there's a huge advantage to starting at the bottom - you can tell how you're doing. Read a book, acquire some modest NL skills, and you can beat microstakes online. Once you accomplish that, you know you've learned something. Then you can move up.

If you start out at nosebleed stakes, you could acquire substantial skills, still be losing, and not know what you need to change to get better. A coach might help, but I don't think there's any substitute for practice at gradually increasing difficulty levels. It's how top competitors are "made" in every field I can think of.

Andy Beal would be a classic example of someone who jumped in at the top and despite substantial skills both in the gambling world and in business (presumably indicating high intelligence), reading all the books, and working diligently on his game he couldn't win. When he moved down to more reasonable stakes, he was a winner.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

Ya, but Bill Gates? Were only playing with chips; the money is irrelevant completely from the point of the question. Hell, 1/2? That is microstakes!!!!
Im not dissing the learning that could be done..but could you imagine Michael Jordan is gonna start playing poker at a live casino? IS he gonna jump on the 1/2 table to "learn" and improve? No, he's gonna take his lumps in the big game until he gets better. He certainly isnt going broke playing 5/10 NL

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

gates makes like 20 million a DAY or more passively, I just fail to see how any stakes that have live games around the clock anywhere would be a bad choice for him, but the thing is he would be playing to win, not win money, so he would be winning a [censored] ton more at smaller stakes, so that may be a valid reason to play a game you can beat until you crush it, then move up, even though your bankroll has nothing to do with it.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
. There are still enough bad players at NL200 that you can play ABC and still win. You cant do that higher IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

all the more reason for him not to waste his time there. the assumption has to be that he is learning how to play the game at a high level, regardless of the limit b/c $ wouldn't be a factor. so, it doesn't make sense for him to play at a limit where he can get by w/o playing very well-- even if it is just for experience. again, op assumed that he has a steep learning curve, so he shouldn't certainly be willing to start higher as he can eat the losses w/o blinking an eye.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

Bill gates said he likes to play 3-6 limit when he goes to the casinos because the players are more entertaining. At higher limits no one talks or has fun, in his opinion.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

that is beside the point. the baseline assumption was that he was looking to become as good of a player as possible. if that's not the case in real life whatever-- this is just hypothetical.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

If the question is "What stakes should BG play to maximize profits" then he really should start around .10/.25. If he were to start at high or mid stakes then surely he would lose a large amount while learning the game.

If the question is "What stakes should he play to learn the fastest" then it would be the highest level.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say there's a huge advantage to starting at the bottom - you can tell how you're doing. Read a book, acquire some modest NL skills, and you can beat microstakes online. Once you accomplish that, you know you've learned something. Then you can move up.

If you start out at nosebleed stakes, you could acquire substantial skills, still be losing, and not know what you need to change to get better. A coach might help, but I don't think there's any substitute for practice at gradually increasing difficulty levels. It's how top competitors are "made" in every field I can think of.

Andy Beal would be a classic example of someone who jumped in at the top and despite substantial skills both in the gambling world and in business (presumably indicating high intelligence), reading all the books, and working diligently on his game he couldn't win. When he moved down to more reasonable stakes, he was a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd that you would bring up Beal as the example of why it can't be done. I was thinking just the opposite. If he would have attempted anything reasonable, I think he would have pulled it off. But HU against a team of the best pros..., with them subbing in and out....he was destinied to "fail."

So when I see Beal's case, I think it shows there is potential for someone to pull it off. If they are willing to start at say, 50-100 instead of challenging the best in the world to HU all of them against him.

Of course, Beal seems like a pretty unique case. Unlimited bankroll and incredible drive to succeed, too.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

Thanks for all the responses. Personally I think that once you can beat a certain level, you can obviously beat every level below it with slight adjustments, and it doesn't really matter where you start off, at least if money has nothing to do with it...

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you start out at nosebleed stakes, you could acquire substantial skills, still be losing, and not know what you need to change to get better. A coach might help, but I don't think there's any substitute for practice at gradually increasing difficulty levels. It's how top competitors are "made" in every field I can think of.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't really make logical sense. The feedback you get from playing poker isn't binary (ie. winning player/losing player). Its a dollar amount. Going from losing $10/hour at 2/4 to winning $10/hour, isn't better feedback then losing $500/hour at 10/20 to just losing $400/hour. You can still track progress.

If anything you're more likely to develop bad habits playing smaller where those mistakes don't cost you much (because your opponents don't exploit them) then at the higher limits. If we make the assumption that every level is different, I don't see how you can claim it makes sense to not play at the level you're aiming for. You're just learning skills you're not going to use. I'm not saying playing different limits won't help you develop better skills, just you might as well learn your main game first.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

.5/1 nl

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

There are major differences between micro-stakes and all other games. There isn't much to gain from them compared to low/medium stakes because the games are often shove-fests and do not compare that well to any higher limit games in terms of strategy and player ability. Just start grinding .50/1nl or 1/2nl.

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

I agree with luckbox,
I think 1/2 would be the best place to learn the game. Enough decent players to actually 'play' poker, but a lot of donks as well to give you some perspective. Playing microlimits wont teach you anything but patience- winning is a grind and not much fun at all. I think 1/2 is where to can start to make moves against players who can lay down hands. any lower wouldnt be much of a lesson and anything more a beginner will destroyed

Re: A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
.5/1 nl

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I think this/1-2 is the best place to start learning the game, provided you have about a 2k roll.