Switching to commerce no limit

[reedy]

I have been a regular 20/40 player at the commerce for about 2 years now with a win rate of about 1.8bb per 100 hands.
I have been reading nl holdem theory & practice for the past couple of weeks and decided to switch from limit to nl for a few months.
My question was which stakes to start nl at $100, $200 or the $500 game? or does the bike have better nl action.
Has anybody made the same switch from simliar stakes and how did it go?

Thanks in advance.

[stinkypete]

play the 5/10 NL ($400)

[csuf_gambl0o0r]

how did u calculate your win rate

[reedy]

Based on 100 hands per 3 hours. Kind of rough i guess but i did spend 1 week counting my hands played every session {with one of those little click and count things that doormen use at clubs}
Very boring and small sample size i know buts its the best i can do for live action unless anyone knows of an easier way to track results.

[AKQJ10]

I haven't played those, so for all I know the games might not get any tougher at higher stakes. Still, I'd strongly recommend that a NL rookie start fairly low. Those $20 and $40 games are pretty goofy, but experimenting with the $100 probably makes sense.

OTOH, the $2-3 structure allows virtually no postflop play, so it's just getting your feet wet before you really start practicing NL.

[amulet]

the commerce's structure is not great. i prefer a structure where the big blind is a minimum of 100 times the minimum buyin and the sb 1/2 of that. the blinds are a little too high in the commerce middle limit nl games.

1.88 bb per hour is great. given that there are so many higher limit games at commerce i would consider moving up on the limit side, while exploring nl. the 40/80, 60/120, & 100/200 are all very weak.

in nl, the games are also weak. if you can make it into the $2000 minimum buyin as a good nl player down the road you should make a lot of money.

my guess is 20/40 limit, and $400 nl with blinds that are a little high probably yield about the same for a good player.

of course in nl the better player's advantage allows him/her to exploit the weaker players more then in limit, and you will earn more money once you master nl.

nlht&p is not a book that really teaches you how to play nl. it has it's strengths, but i would not relay on it to learn how to play nl. i would also read the harrington series, and again, make the move slowly. nl is a very different game, it will take you time to become as good in nl.

i also question the 1.88 bb per hour. i think you need a larger sample size.

i play the bigger limit games at commerce, and the biggest nl games. i find both weak compared to non california clubs.

good luck.

[reedy]

My win rate of 1.88bb per 100 hands is based off of 2 years of live poker {around 20 hour per week}. I figure thats around 60,000 hands of poker {lol at live poker}.
If iam still sitting at 1.75 to 1.90bb per 100 when i reach 100,000 hands my sample size would be big enough...correct??

Thanks for the great nl advice so far guys.

[Michael Davis]

"My win rate of 1.88bb per 100 hands is based off of 2 years of live poker {around 20 hour per week}. I figure thats around 60,000 hands of poker {lol at live poker}.
If iam still sitting at 1.75 to 1.90bb per 100 when i reach 100,000 hands my sample size would be big enough...correct??"

No, not even close, unfortunately. Ask the stat guys how close to your normal earn you will be, but just anecdotally I played 400,000 hands online of a certain limit with the following winrates:

3.2/100
2.8/100
2.6/100
0.6/100

-Michael

[reedy]

ok so whats a decent sample size...500,000, 1000,000? will it take me 5 years of live poker to figure out my win rate?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
ok so whats a decent sample size...500,000, 1000,000? will it take me 5 years of live poker to figure out my win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]

More than 5 years for sure.