50NL vs 100NL: the great divide

[Breadeater]

To me there seems to be a fairly substantial talent gap when making the jump from 50NL to 100NL. Now dont get me wrong I've found plenty of donks at 100 and some at 200NL but the frequency of them drops off a lot after 50NL. I'm at the stage in my poker progression where 100NL is the next step. I'll usually only play in games above 50NL where there's some fishyness goin on at the table. 50NL remains my bread and butter.

I'm wondering whether it's really worth it for me to move up full time to 100NL as the avg pot size at the 50NL games are often the same as the 100NL games. On top of this the 50NL guys are way more likely to hand me there stacks or just play badly against me. When I play at the higher stakes I seem to make some rushed decisions and tilt a little more easily and when I do there's less players around who'll just hand me back my money. I'd say I'm around break even or a slight loser at these higher limits.

Extracting money seems so much easier and I'm really thinking I should just stay at 50NL and make my standard wage...Anyone else gone through this?

[mce86]

I was playing live exclusively for six months..and dabbling with online usually NL100 and NL 200. Here our my stats for my first full time online month:
NL100: 9,289 Hands Down 750 (granted I lost 7 Buy ins Sunday night)
NL 200: 4,882 Hands, Up 1600
I dont get it, and it frustrtes me to no end that I cant beat NL100!
Career stats are pretty similar too! More breakeven at NL100, and 3PTbb/100 at NL200.
My advice, mix the games up so you can eventually get to NL200.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing live exclusively for six months..and dabbling with online usually NL100 and NL 200. Here our my stats for my first full time online month:
NL100: 9,289 Hands Down 750 (granted I lost 7 Buy ins Sunday night)
NL 200: 4,882 Hands, Up 1600
I dont get it, and it frustrtes me to no end that I cant beat NL100!
Career stats are pretty similar too! More breakeven at NL100, and 3PTbb/100 at NL200.
My advice, mix the games up so you can eventually get to NL200.

[/ QUOTE ]

your sample sizes are so small that you really shouldn't even be concerned about "not beating NL$100" and you definitely shouldn't be thinking "wow, i can't beat NL$100, but at least I can beat NL$200!"

your thinking should in fact be more along the lines of "well i didn't beat NL$100 this 10,000 hand sample, maybe things will turn around in the next 90,000."

[mce86]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was playing live exclusively for six months..and dabbling with online usually NL100 and NL 200. Here our my stats for my first full time online month:
NL100: 9,289 Hands Down 750 (granted I lost 7 Buy ins Sunday night)
NL 200: 4,882 Hands, Up 1600
I dont get it, and it frustrtes me to no end that I cant beat NL100!
Career stats are pretty similar too! More breakeven at NL100, and 3PTbb/100 at NL200.
My advice, mix the games up so you can eventually get to NL200.

[/ QUOTE ]

your sample sizes are so small that you really shouldn't even be concerned about "not beating NL$100" and you definitely shouldn't be thinking "wow, i can't beat NL$100, but at least I can beat NL$200!"

your thinking should in fact be more along the lines of "well i didn't beat NL$100 this 10,000 hand sample, maybe things will turn around in the next 90,000."

[/ QUOTE ]

What im really thinking is.."man, I hope that doesnt happen to me at NL200!!!"

[Colms]

NL 200 is easy than NL 100

[GSykes]

[ QUOTE ]
NL 200 is easy than NL 100

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT in certain aspects.

I love 200nl the game starts to open up beyond some low limit grind, and regulars are still terrible.

[NateDog11]

i totally agree with nnnnooooonan. sample size there is WAY to small. as far as moving up in limits, it sounds like you dont want to and you dont make nearly as good a profit at the 100nl. so why are you thinking about moving up? i dont know your bankroll but it sounds like 100nl might be above it making your steam control less and allowing you to rush your decisions and beat yourself up later. i suggest staying at 50nl especially bc the avg pot sizes are about the same. FOLLOW THE FISH. if people at 50nl are handing you their money, why go somewhere else?

[JOHNY CA$H]

Yeah, every new limit requires some adjustment. From my vantage point now though, I don't see much difference between 50-100NL. I'm sure someday I'll say that about 200-400NL.

[Barfunkel]

I recently moved from NL50 to NL100 and I didn't notice any real difference. Maybe a few a bit more aggressive players but finding tables full of passive fishes isn't a problem. And if there aren't any I just play games that do have the fishes (ie NL50 and PLO50). It's not like a law forces you to stay there once you move up, you can always play lower stakes if they seem more profitable.

[biendover]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, every new limit requires some adjustment. From my vantage point now though, I don't see much difference between 50-100NL. I'm sure someday I'll say that about 200-400NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

50 and 100 play the same except you win more monies in nl100 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]