Natural Progression

[Frond]

The moving up theory for poker usually goes-One should start at very low stakes and move up as you build your bankroll and improve you game etc. I wonder just how many poker pros and authors have started this way other than a lot here on the forums and player-authors such as Ed Miller? They all advocate this but have most of them done this? How would they know what a 2/4 limit hold em game is truly like unless they have put in many hours at it? In SSHE in the very beginning of the book they state this quite clearly that this is why Miller is there because he has done just that but what about a lot of other so-called experts on poker?. I'll bet that a lot of them didn't start at the lowest limits available and work up but started perhaps at middle to higher limits. I think that many players like myself are still playing at lower limits like 2/4, 3/6, 4/8LHE and 1-2 NLHE etc. Sometimes I feel like a lot of these so-called pros and authors don't recognize this fact unless the book is totally geared towards the lower limit players which makes up a huge % of the poker players out there. Comments?

[DigitalDeuce]

One thing to remember, a lot of these people you're talking about have been with the game for a very long time...long before the "explosion" of the past few years. They've been with the game before everyone's 3rd-Uncle twice removed wrote a book on the game and the general average player had the resources to get a little better at the game.

Back then, gambling was gambling to most people and they were a lot more giving with their money and worse in their play. Most casino's didnt' have poker rooms..let alone 2/4 games.

You reach a certain level of understanding the game where I think your experience is going to intuitively provide you the answers to what to do in many limits and thus be able to play correctly in a low-stakes game with limited actual experience.

D_D

(edit - This certainly has something to do with why so many players go broke trying to move up too soon. The games are often similar from level to level. So while you can adjust to moving up and playing the next game, you often don't have the proper bankroll. I think this is why the stress proper management so much...it's easy to see the bigger money and same game at 5/10 compared to 2/4 but unless you're BR is ready you'll often wind up broke.)

[Voltaire]

Miller's book and others actually show that the authors haven't played low limit poker in a long time. Their idea of how loose the games are, especially the game online is ludicrous. The players are much tougher than they realize. The loosey-goosey games they have in mind only exist at microlimits, and maybe not there since I don't play those games so I wouldn't know for sure. I can tell you that the average 2/4 limit player online is tougher than the average 10/20 player I used to play against years ago. I can also tell you that the average 5/10 limit player is 99% as good as the average 30/60 player. Size of game is still meaningful, but there just isn't the disparity that there once was.

[Frond]

Good points by both of you.

I think that the online play has obviously changed dramtically within the last year or so with the legislation and closing rooms and ways to fund etc. The online games have really tightened up a lot in general so I can see where in Millers book that ceratin things do't apply to online play these day but the B&M LHE games are as loose as ever from what I have seen.

[NMcNasty]

I think most of the pros out there started at low/mid limit B&M games, and then moved up with improper bankrolls.

Really you shouldn't be listening to anyone about how to manage your bankroll. It has as much to do with your personal lifestyle, ambitions, and financial state as it does with mathematics and strategy. Just be aware that 20 buyin downswings happen to good players.

[mutiger91]

I used to play $3/$6 LHE in live games and it is MUCH looser than online. I was playing one night with a dealer who was actually a pretty good player on the side. He started having fun with it by saying things like "Only 8 players" when he went to deal the flop.

The only looser games I have seen were Party Poker's "beginners" tables when I first started playing.

[Mike]

Nothing is stagnant, not even poker. When Miller's book came out, almost no one played that way. The way players play now is a reaction to the most recent play type out there.

[Bad Lobster]

I think the use of "so-called" is a little inflammatory, but I agree that things aren't the way they're described in the books. But the same thing is true of any advice you'll ever receive in your life--you have to apply it intelligently.

The notion of moving up in stakes is not applicable for everyone. Most bankroll discussions treat a bankroll as something that it's a complete disaster to lose. Well, I have a regular job--that means my bankroll is whatever I can afford out of my salary and spending long weeks playing at tiny limits is not worth my time. If I go bust, I'll lay off poker till the next payday.

The only reason I need to play for low limits is to be sure I'm good enough to play at the bigger tables.

What I've found in real life at my local casino is that the 6-12 and 15-30 tables are much easier to beat than the 3-6 tables. Players aren't any smarter, they're freer with their money than 3-6 players, and the house rake-off doesn't kill the smaller pots. I'm glad I gave them a try before building up XXX big bets of bankroll at 2-4 or 3-6. (And from my limited observations, the 100-200 players aren't a bit better--but I still can't afford that game.)

(Two things to remember before you take my advice to heart: one, I CAN afford to lose my bankroll, and two, I didn't just decide to go pro and jump into a medium-stakes table with a bankroll of ten bets. I first built up enough on-line micro-limit experience to be able to judge whether I can beat the game I'm in.)

[mvdgaag]

Bankroll schmankroll. Just realise big swings happen and you are bound to go broke one day. Even the greatest players have gone broke a couple of times on average. 20 bbl downswings do happen but are rediculously rare. I think average swings you go through all the time are between 2 and 4 buyins over a couple K hands. With eight to ten buyins you should get pretty unlucky going broke if you can expect a small win in the long run but the longer you play the more rediculous down (and fortunately also up) swings you experience.

Moral of the story: Don't play with money you can't afford to lose, that's all there is to it.

About the books. There are few real bad players online. Even at micro stakes most players have read some book(s) and know the basic strategy pretty well. Don't underestimate the amount of young smart students with a lot of time on their hands to learn the game and that do not have the money to play at higher stakes and therefore play low or micro stakes. I feel there is some arrogance about the difference in level of play between the different stakes in some books. The only true difference is that those people are not likely to be real bad (they are not risking this much money on a game they can't play at all) and have a lot more money to play with.

GL

[Tommo777]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points by both of you.

I think that the online play has obviously changed dramtically within the last year or so with the legislation and closing rooms and ways to fund etc. The online games have really tightened up a lot in general so I can see where in Millers book that ceratin things do't apply to online play these day but the B&M LHE games are as loose as ever from what I have seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]