A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll

wrkingtobegreat · #1 07-16-2007, 02:53 PM

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)

wrkingtobegreat · #2 07-16-2007, 02:55 PM

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?

mce86 · #3 07-16-2007, 02:58 PM

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.

wrkingtobegreat · #4 07-16-2007, 03:01 PM

[ 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?

tarheeljks · #5 07-16-2007, 03:56 PM

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.

jjshabado · #6 07-16-2007, 09:13 PM

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.

mce86 · #7 07-17-2007, 01:06 AM

[/ 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

tarheeljks · #8 07-17-2007, 02:11 PM

[ 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.