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

SplawnDarts · #8 07-17-2007, 01:13 AM

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.

mce86 · #9 07-17-2007, 01:20 AM

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

gordongecko · #10 07-17-2007, 04:45 AM

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.