A Functionally Unlimited Bankroll

[tarheeljks]

[ 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.

[skitzo444]

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.

[tarheeljks]

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.

[LegendLength]

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.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ 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.

[wrkingtobegreat]

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...

[jjshabado]

[ 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.

[GSykes]

.5/1 nl

[luckbox666]

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.

[sweeng8]

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