Risk to being OVER rolled as well as UNDER rolled?

[llleisure]

I was going to post this in reply to the thread here:

Bankroll Definition and Recommendation for No-Limit Hold 'em

But I feel like it'd be a thread hijack, though it's that thread that got me thinking and this is related so I hope I get some feedback.

My situation is somewhat similar to the OP in the linked thread, but I can't help but feel like my game is stagnating. I currently play SSNL but HSNL is my goal. I don't work but I did work a long time making good money. Right now, playing poker is not the reason I don't have to work but if it goes well, it could be the reason I don't have to go get a "real" job again. If it goes badly for an extended period, it could be the reason I go get a job but that isn't some terrible fear I have - been there, done that, easy but boring.

I could afford to be playing much higher than 1/2 which is where I started in March of 2006 (in live games). I was just AWFUL when I started. I improved playing online before Party bailed (about 45k hands from April-October) and playing live at underground rooms very frequently. Couple of Vegas trips in the last month - first two trips ever soley to play poker - went well. I see clear improvement since March. Yet here I am, still at the stakes I started at - and still wondering how much "bankroll" do I drop on FTP? How many hundreds of thousands of hands do I need to have online (and at what stakes) before I can say "ok, it wasn't a fluke, I don't suck, I really have improved."? When does someone knock on my door and say "move up stakes now idiot!"

Feeling good about my live play, I opened an FTP account. I'm just going to refuse to play lower than 1/2 on FTP even though it seems tougher than live 1/2 or 2/5. The problem is, if I move any lower, I can't seem to care about the money. I feel like I need to bring my online game up to at least match the stakes I'm already winning at live - and I feel like in doing that, I can improve my game. Ideally I'd like to bring both live and online games into parity (is that even realistic) and to match my potential bankroll and if it costs money, I figure it's an investment in myself.

Is this a bad way to look at it? Is there a golden rule that says if I didn't build my HSNL bankroll by starting at .25/.50 and grinding up I'm hosed? If I'm able to afford to pay for some of the education, fully understanding that is what I'm doing, is that just a terrible approach?

I don't know what number I consider my "bankroll" for poker. I'm thinking of taking maybe 30 buyins for 1/2 - and depositing it in FTP to see how that goes. If I manage to loose it all, am I busto? No, but I wouldn't feel too great about dumping $6k into FTP every few months either...even if I can support it via live play (which I may or may not be able to do right now.) Do I keep seperate "online" and "live" bankrolls? I honestly don't know how to approach many aspects of the growth issue.

Combine this with the fact that in live games I'm thinking I need to do something in 2007 to not stagnate at 1/2 live games - like moving up to 2/5 or more. Unfortunately the local underground place I've grown to love spreads 1/2 - for 2/5 it's a 45min drive but I may just bite the bullet and start making that drive multiple times a week. Is staying home and working on improving via FTP - maybe going from 1/2 to 2/4 - a better use of time? Do I switch games - PLO maybe - rather than stakes (I've been laser focused on NLHE all this time at the expense of being your basic n00b at anything else so game switch WILL be expensive.)

I'm not exactly risk averse but at the same time I don't want to foolishly charge into levels I'm not ready for - online or live. With the caveat that I won't go lower than 1/2 online, ready or not.

When you're in a situation one of the posters in the linked thread described - you play 1/2 and you've got 300 buyins - don't you run the risk of stagnation and complacency? Your game at some point stops improving and may even suffer - you get to where you destroy that level, excepting bad runs. Once you get there, it's comfortable and if it's entertainment enough - or income enough - to satisfy you then great but if not, if your goal is to continue to grow, then shouldn't you do the hard thing? Shouldn't you move up and trade the comfort (and risk of stagnation) for risk of $ (and potential improvement.)

I read the Antonious article in Bluff this month and not to compare myself to anywhere close to him, but what he said about moving up spoke to me. He said something to the effect that moving up and having it cost you some money was far more valuable in the long run than staying at a level til you kill that level.

If I loose everything I have (and by everything I mean money, not house or IRA which I don't consider "in play") then I go get another job making way more money than I need - probably more than I'll make at poker without years more pratice. But I enjoy playing poker and I' like to move forward doing that. I don't NEED to make millions playing poker but at the same, I wouldn't mind if I got there.

What's a holla balla wannabe to do?? Is this the adult version of the kid in high school dreaming he can play in the NFL?

I can't help but wonder: Am I in a better or worse position to improve my game than someone who has no choice but to slowly grind his way up from micro to SSNL to MSNL to HSNL? Someone who has no real job with great earning potential to fall back on?

[Rekrul]

I didn't read your post that much but I think what you said may have been if you try too hard to protect your roll you are losing a lot of potential $ and poker education.

And this is very, very, very true.

[Rekrul]

You only live once...no reason to be a wuss.

Then again...the same reasons people want 300 buyins before they move up to 2/4 are the same reasons that they are nits grinding those stakes and are the same reasons that they will never be good players.

[PJ94z]

If you have money to burn, why not give it a shot.

However, online games are very different then live games...it will take you longer to master online poker then live.

So, realize you will need more practice playing online before you start winning... unless you are already an above average player.

If you are comfortable loosing 6k online and wouldn't flinch at having to reload another 6k.. I'd say go for it.

[spino1i]

I think as long as you have the discipline to move down in stakes if you do poorly you can take shots at higher stakes with only 30 buy-ins or so. You just have to be able to drop down to lower stakes in you fall below 30 buy-ins. Thats difficult for some people to accept.

[MDMA]

Man, this article did nothing for me.

[Margin Of Error]

I think bored money is just as dangerous as scared money.

[SEABEAST]

First step is to realise that online poker is an entirely different beast from live play.

Then set yourself goals for moving up, and only factor in your online results in determining this. If you read these boards it will soon become apparent what sort of results are reliable indicators of progress.

I wouldn't factor in live play whatsoever. There would be many live players killing 10/20 games that couldn't beat 1/2 online. There would also be 1/2 grinders online that would get smashed if they tried to play 10/20 live. It's just a different entity.

[llleisure]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, this article did nothing for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't meant as an article, rather me trying to describe my own situation and get feedback on how to proceed. My situation may be similar to others, maybe not.

As far as the feedback from a few posters, thanks VERY much!

The thought about not factoring live success into online success hadn't occurred to me at all. You're right, they are way different and may be part of why you see some of the super successful online guys hit 21 and just blow up live games.

The point about bored money being as dangerous as scared is also very good and I hadn't tought of that either. Bored money may have been where my game was headed if I didn't take specific steps to avoid it. Starting with a proper roll online, setting goals and striving to improve and learn are the steps I will be taking and frankly, I'm excited about it. At my age (38), to be excited about something like when you were 19 or 20 is a great feeling. The futures so bright, I gotta wear shades. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

THANKS!

[iDONKEDyoo]

"I read the Antonious article in Bluff this month and not to compare myself to anywhere close to him, but what he said about moving up spoke to me. He said something to the effect that moving up and having it cost you some money was far more valuable in the long run than staying at a level til you kill that level."

this is very bad advice.