Why move up?

Gildwulf · #1 11-08-2006, 10:29 AM

Hey all,

I have possibly a silly question for the forum, but one that I have been thinking about quite a bit.

Let's say you are a winning player at NL600 and you can multitable (6-8 tables) successfully for $250-$300/hr with rakeback. I'm sure there are plenty of people like this on the forum.

My question is: why move up? Why move up to NL1000 and NL2000 and NL5000, etc. $300/hr is pretty ridiculous and you don't really need that much money ($40k?) to stay at that level, it's easy money, and fun. Is it that it gets too easy or you get bored? Is it an ego thing? Is it just that you are trying to prove you are the best? Is it to get better more quickly?

I see all these BBV threads of really solid players crashing and burning at 25/50NL+ when they could be making 30k a month at mid-stakes and I'm just wondering if it's actually worth it in the long-run to keep moving up when the variance gets so crazy and your winrate gets progressively smaller and your standard deviation increases.

Maybe I'm just biased because I'm only a "semi-professional" (i.e. part-time) player and I don't have the rush to move up like a lot of professional players here do.

jfish · #2 11-08-2006, 10:33 AM

because its not an effective use of bankroll management. at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive (unless you simply arent good enough to beat higher games).

CopTHIS · #3 11-08-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know what that means.

Gildwulf · #4 11-08-2006, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
because its not an effective use of bankroll management. at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive (unless you simply arent good enough to beat higher games).

[/ QUOTE ]

so why not keep a 50k bankroll for 3/6 and cash everything else out and put it in investments or something?

Ansky · #5 11-08-2006, 10:40 AM

Gild,

Most people seek to make more money then they currently make. It's that simple.

Dan BRIGHT · #6 11-08-2006, 10:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because its not an effective use of bankroll management. at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive (unless you simply arent good enough to beat higher games).

[/ QUOTE ]

so why not keep a 50k bankroll for 3/6 and cash everything else out and put it in investments or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not take a shot at 25/50 and spike a gawdamn set while your at it?

jfish · #7 11-08-2006, 10:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have $40,000 and play 1/2nl, you are not using your time optimally.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because its not an effective use of bankroll management. at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive (unless you simply arent good enough to beat higher games).

[/ QUOTE ]

so why not keep a 50k bankroll for 3/6 and cash everything else out and put it in investments or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

thats not a bad idea, but ROI from poker is going to be higher than ROI in other investments.

Gildwulf · #8 11-08-2006, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have $40,000 and play 1/2nl, you are not using your time optimally.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because its not an effective use of bankroll management. at some point, being severely overroled is most certainly counter-productive (unless you simply arent good enough to beat higher games).

[/ QUOTE ]

so why not keep a 50k bankroll for 3/6 and cash everything else out and put it in investments or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

thats not a bad idea, but ROI from poker is going to be higher than ROI in other investments.

[/ QUOTE ]

not if you think of the peter principle

Mr_Blonde · #9 11-08-2006, 10:46 AM

For me poker is something I really want to be world class at. I'm just not satisfied grinding it out at 3/6 or whatever. The money is only one aspect of it, I love the game and want to get better/play higher all the time.

CopTHIS · #10 11-08-2006, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't know what that means.

if you have $40,000 and play 1/2nl, you are not using your time optimally.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is logically incorrect - unless you are saying that anything that doesn't maximise wealth is not optimal - which is silly. Most people want to maximise happiness, and that may include, for example, playing a smaller game than they can beat, and not playing in the small hours of the morning even if the action is softest then.