optimum limit?

[mikee_j]

here is a question and answer from Scott fischmans blog on cardplayer. it brings up a debate i was having with a friend the other day and a situation i feel myself in:

Q Lately, I've been running bad, losing to two outers, etc. - I'm sure you know the drill! I've noticed that it is really hard getting players off of marginal hands before the flop, and with any kind of drawing hand after the flop. I am mostly playing in lower buy-in tournaments, where a lot of the players aren't very good. Would it be better to save up a bankroll and play more expensive tournaments, where I may still run bad, but will feel more comfortable with the quality of play? Or should I stick it out where I'm at? I'm getting tired of only feeling comfortable with quads!!!
-Cory

A First of all, I don't blame you for being frustrated! I believe that your instincts are correct: you can't get over the hump of "I have to make a flush to win!" until you start playing in the bigger-buy-in tournaments. Smaller tournaments can often be card-catching contests - if you want to experience great play, you're going to have to find your way into the more expensive tournaments. I got lucky, finding financial backers who gave me the chance to play at a higher level before my bankroll would allow it. Assuming you don't have someone willing to invest in you, then I'd say "yes" to your question: Spend a couple of weeks saving up for a bigger-buy-in tournament, or try to play your way in using satellites and supersatellites. While you're saving, take some time to "sweat" the big tournament, analyzing the play and identifying as many factors as you can before risking your own money.



what is everyones thoughts on this. i constantly find myself outdrawn by fish who can't lay down AJ pre-flop or chasing straights or flushes they don't have the odds to chase. i am still able to make money at this level (i'm in profit, not any huge amounts) so please don't see this as a moan about not winning or bad beats.

the debate i had with my mate led us to settling on there being an optimum level where your skill level is suited and for some of us we can struggle to build a bankroll to get up to that level without having to deposit cash from other sources.

For those that have gone through the limits from lower to the higher, did you notice a difference in skill at certain levels, did you ever feel out of your depth?

discuss...

[Graham C]

I generally play at the low levels mtt's and stt's and it's right, so I've tried a couple of higher limit games with mtt's and they've been pretty good.  The trouble for me is that I haven't cashed in them so my BR reduces a lot.  I play poker online most days but I can't afford to be playing at the higher level buy ins unless I make a cash.   You do tend to get a better game although you do get crazies at every level - $50 to me is a fair amount, but to others, it's nothing.  I didn't really feel out of my depth, although the first one, I appreciated that top pair isn't necessarily a great hand   I enjoyed it though, it kind of made me think more and appreciate what's going on around me a bit more.

Now, I play a few tourneys at my usual cheap rate, then when I win some, have a bash at a more expensive one.  When I cash (probably the next one ) I'm hoping it's enough to keep me at that level for a while.

We can't all get backers to play for us at decent levels, so it's best to find a level where the money means something to you I think and play to that.

[Moskvich]

I'm sure there's something in the idea that for some players the lower levels might not be easier to beat. But I also suspect that lots of players aren't willing or able to adapt their game to the players around them. If you're playing your perfect clever poker against people who wouldn't recognise it if you shoved it up their every orifice then you're going to get frustratingly outdrawn (while obviously still raking in a profit from the times you hand holds up). But if you're better than them then you should be able to work out what they're up to and adjust your play accordingly to minimise how often that situation develops, shouldn't you..? If it still bothers you, then maybe it's temperament rather than poker 'skill' that's the issue.

I found myself having a massive problem with outdraws a couple of weeks ago - constantly going out of STTs ($20) as a result of them. Eventually I decided to try and keep pots smaller, especially in the later stages, and stop putting all my chips in the middle so often to reduce the number of opportunities for an outdraw to knock me out. Seems, so far at least, to have given me a better balance between accumulating chips and making sure I stay in the game.

[bhoywonder]

I'm sure there's something in the idea that for some players the lower levels might not be easier to beat. But I also suspect that lots of players aren't willing or able to adapt their game to the players around them. If you're playing your perfect clever poker against people who wouldn't recognise it if you shoved it up their every orifice then you're going to get frustratingly outdrawn (while obviously still raking in a profit from the times you hand holds up). But if you're better than them then you should be able to work out what they're up to and adjust your play accordingly to minimise how often that situation develops, shouldn't you..? If it still bothers you, then maybe it's temperament rather than poker 'skill' that's the issue.

I found myself having a massive problem with outdraws a couple of weeks ago - constantly going out of STTs ($20) as a result of them. Eventually I decided to try and keep pots smaller, especially in the later stages, and stop putting all my chips in the middle so often to reduce the number of opportunities for an outdraw to knock me out. Seems, so far at least, to have given me a better balance between accumulating chips and making sure I stay in the game.

so do u always fold when put to the test with top pair  and top kicker to a player u regard as less skilled? ( on the flop that is )

[M3boy]

Moving up levels and playing higher buy in tourneys will , i agree, mean that you meet less people chasing hands they shouldnt.
BUT at these levels, the competition will be alot tougher - many top players will play against you, and not necessarily with any cards - they will look to take pots away from you if you show signs of weakness.

Its just a case of adapting your game to suit the environment.

The key for me in tournaments is to build my stack slowly - ie keeping pots small and not risking a large %age of my stack.
Now this works for me as it suits my game, but other people who use the "get a big stack quick" method also have sucess.

Poker is an easy game - but there is no right.wrong way to play - just a correct way to manage your bankroll.

[snoopy1239]

I disagree with Fischman and consider this to be bad advice.

If the player saves up his hard earned dosh to play in a bigger tournament, he will suffer from the following problems:

(1) inexperience at the higher level
(2) the pressure of more money being on the line
(3) less opportunities to make money due to playing less

The smaller levels may contain frequent bad beats and outdraws, but they are NOT random. If you are a better player than the other participants then you WILL have an advantage and should earn money in the long-run.

However, many skilled players lack discipline, not being able to handle the luck factor involved in lowers stakes games. Also, they don't necessary take into consideration the level of their opponents, perhaps trying to bluff them too often, or getting unnecessarily cute with their big hands. There is a skill in playing the lower levels, and if you can master that skill, then you will have a clear edge over everyone else.

[thetank]

I agree, beating a big game requires continual adjustment to different dynamics.

If you can't even adjust to beat a small game, you're buggered.

[vegaslover]

The smaller levels may contain frequent bad beats and outdraws, but they are NOT random. If you are a better player than the other participants then you WILL have an advantage and should earn money in the long-run.

However, many skilled players lack discipline, not being able to handle the luck factor involved in lowers stakes games. Also, they don't necessary take into consideration the level of their opponents, perhaps trying to bluff them too often, or getting unnecessarily cute with their big hands. There is a skill in playing the lower levels, and if you can master that skill, then you will have a clear edge over everyone else.

I agree snoopy, at the end of the day these bad plays are what keep better players in profit in the long run.
People often overlook the psychology of poker interms of how the luck factor affects themselves.
We have all altered our game, for the worse, when the luck starts going against us, then complain even more. Long term profitable players tend to be able to ignore these unlucky streaks.
Take someone like our very own wardonkey for example. renowned stt player who freely admits to having long runs where the luck variance goes against him.

[boldie]

I disagree with Fischman and consider this to be bad advice.

If the player saves up his hard earned dosh to play in a bigger tournament, he will suffer from the following problems:

(1) inexperience at the higher level
(2) the pressure of more money being on the line
(3) less opportunities to make money due to playing less

The smaller levels may contain frequent bad beats and outdraws, but they are NOT random. If you are a better player than the other participants then you WILL have an advantage and should earn money in the long-run.

However, many skilled players lack discipline, not being able to handle the luck factor involved in lowers stakes games. Also, they don't necessary take into consideration the level of their opponents, perhaps trying to bluff them too often, or getting unnecessarily cute with their big hands. There is a skill in playing the lower levels, and if you can master that skill, then you will have a clear edge over everyone else.

wise words from the snoop.
If you can't cash in small events you don't really have a shot in the big events...honestly you can forget all about it.

I don't have a bankroll to play with that can match anyones (I like to spend my money on silly things like food and shelter) but I am slowly but surely building it up just by grinding it out at the lower levels and smaller tournaments.
If you can't consitently cash in those I reckon you don't stand much of a chance against guys that do the high levels for a living.
If you play in the big tournaments/ big cash games, without a bankroll which can take a hit you will probably not be playing proper poker as you  are too worried about losing the money...you always pick those guys out in any tournament..people who are so desperate for the money that you can move them off just about every hand....you don't want to be one of those guys.

Stick to your level, build up your bankroll and then move on to the next.

[snoopy1239]

Well said, Boldie.

Grinding is a lot more difficult than it looks and my hat goes off to the pro's that play in the shadows day in day out with a limited bankroll. These guys could blow a load of their money on a handful of big live comps, or jump up to the $25/50 game for one crazy session in the hope that they get lucky and create a gigantic bankroll, but they know that would be a foolish thing to do and their game would be severely effected as a result, but they don't - they continue to grind it out and when, and only when, their bankroll has increased in size, they move up a step, not a huge jump, but a gradual process.

It shows great bankroll management and that is a huge skill in poker, not simply going 'ah feck it' and sticking the whole lot into one comp like Fischman is basically suggesting. It's tempting, but you have to resist and continue battling away at a level you are comfortable with. If you lack this basic temperament, then poker is always going to be an uphill struggle.

[thetank]

I think it's an example of some "outside the box" away from convention thinking.

Nothing wrong with that in itself, it may even be true in certain specific situations. The biggest game in the house is not always the toughest, oftentimes the 2nd biggest is.

The danger is that most of the time it won't be, and people will be encouraged to play in larger limits, invest more money in poker, when really they shouldn't be tryng to overreach themselves.

It's not entirely outwith the realms of possibilty that the principle that a lot of people can make money at larger limits, but would get there arse kicked at the smaller ones, was deliberately put out there in the pokersphere to get more fish playing middle limit poker.

That was obtained from Consiparcy Theory's R' Us.

[Jinky04]

I've only scanned this topic but think of the seminal poker movie Rounders. What's the moral of the story there? You take a shot at a higher level, you end up supporting your pal out of jail,  losing your girlfriend, degree course and relying on a last minute loan to avoid getting kneecapped at least. Almost like living in Glasgow.If that's not a warning against "taking your shot", I don't know what is-the fact Matt ends up going to Vegas is irrelevant, like you getting your money in with the nut straight vs two pair. Matt Damon is that guy who fills up on the river-just cos he walks away with the money, doesn't make his play correct. Let's face it- you're about to be shot by a mob boss, what do you do?

a) book a flight to china and lose yourself amongst the mass of humanity and the burgeoning free market economy
b)walk into mob bosses and challenge him to a game of heads up where if you lose your dead, if you win, you don't die and that's it.
c) sit in your fllat with a bottle of famous grouse rocking back and forward on your armchair thinking what you could have done better with your life starting with the whiskey, should have got a bottle of macallans

Eh yes point- stick to your level, if you can't beat wee games LR you can't beat big games LR.

[JP]

Ok numeric example here to show how I interpret Scott Fischman's advice.

Say you have a $1000 bankroll and normally play $10 - $20 Sit and Gos and $1-$10 MTT's.

You play a $5 tournament and come 5th for around $330.

you now have enough to take a chance in 6 $50 MTTs, or say 1 x $100, 2 x $50 and 5 x $20.

You still have your $1000 bankroll but are taking a shot with the profits to get a relatively big payout.

Only danger is thinking you are good enough to play them tournaments and when you go 0/6 stay at that level.

But if you have the discipline I recommend taking shots in this manner as you are reinvesting the profits to build a super quick bankroll.

This way doesn't suit everyone though and I was relatively aggressive with my bankroll when I started and it has worked out well for me, but might not for others. (Has worked to a greater extent with Scott Fischman by the looks of things)

JP