Bad advice
From reading on this forum I've noticed that the general consensus is NOT to move up a level until you are beating the one you are at.
I've had a strange experience recently that contradicts this ...wonder if maybe its time to challenge the 'universal truth' above.
I started playing on a new site at the $22 sng ..and did very well. I was stepping down from $55 on my prev. site to get my "sea legs" on the new one-I think its fair to say I'm a competent player capable of results at that level.
A few weeks later I began playing a $5 sng against a friend every night, for fun...and- I've lost so many games at that level I received the distinct honour of being told I'm on 'Super-tilt' by sharkscope and lost my little shark-lol. I sincerely CAN NOT beat the $5 game..and trying to has almost become a sickness with me.
I've played LAG, I've played TAG, I've tried bribing the dealer..If I could figure out a way to show cleavage online; I would (meaning: I'm really bringing my A game)..and in the end some guy with k-7o sends me packing when he calls all in and hits a runner-runner miracle.
So, I'm wondering if anyone else would agree that not moving up a buy in or two only applies when you're at a level where you are playing opponents who generally apply some form of strategy to the game, and you have invested the time and studied to the point where you consider yourself a reasonable player with a grasp of the game?
I'm not convinced that failing a luckfest means that you are not a good player..and that the advice given to those players struggling at the low buy ins is good.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
I've had a strange experience recently that contradicts this ...wonder if maybe its time to challenge the 'universal truth' above.
I started playing on a new site at the $22 sng ..and did very well. I was stepping down from $55 on my prev. site to get my "sea legs" on the new one-I think its fair to say I'm a competent player capable of results at that level.
A few weeks later I began playing a $5 sng against a friend every night, for fun...and- I've lost so many games at that level I received the distinct honour of being told I'm on 'Super-tilt' by sharkscope and lost my little shark-lol. I sincerely CAN NOT beat the $5 game..and trying to has almost become a sickness with me.
I've played LAG, I've played TAG, I've tried bribing the dealer..If I could figure out a way to show cleavage online; I would (meaning: I'm really bringing my A game)..and in the end some guy with k-7o sends me packing when he calls all in and hits a runner-runner miracle.
So, I'm wondering if anyone else would agree that not moving up a buy in or two only applies when you're at a level where you are playing opponents who generally apply some form of strategy to the game, and you have invested the time and studied to the point where you consider yourself a reasonable player with a grasp of the game?
I'm not convinced that failing a luckfest means that you are not a good player..and that the advice given to those players struggling at the low buy ins is good.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Comments
Have you tried a webcam?? lol jk... i always say you have to adapt to the level that you are playing at... $5 expect fish and suckouts, $55 expect some studied players and less fish, and hopefully less suckouts.
Yea, you can play the 55's alright, but if you can't beat the 5's, you could be missing some skills to beat every type of player and become a more all around player. Each level of play has different types of players in each. At the bottom rung the 5's you have to play differently than the 55's because of the types of players. They all pretty much play the same, so you have to be able to adapt to play that type of play. I can't play my usual game (Friends tell me I'm a maniac, but it's just organized confusion) at the 5's, so I've been learning to adapt with the players at 5's. As I intend to move up each level, I expect to learn different styles of play and which styles to play in certain situations against certain players.
It seems that you can't adapt a different style of play to the play at the 5's, even though you can beat the 55's.
Myself, I play the $5 sngs sometimes when I'm not totally focused on poker as it is usually fun and passes the time. My ROI is surprisingly good. Maybe I make better decisions when I'm not worried about the $? I'm sure I play a pretty tight abc game since I'm not paying close attention.
At $10, my roi is good. Same story I think.
I have played a number of $20. Early results were good but recent results suck so I do drop back to $10 to rebuild the roll and confidence. I have taken shots at higher levels but I don't feel as comfortable online (i.e. stars is rigged) at those stakes so I don't try often. I guess because I'm not particularly focused on the game when it is online and there are so many other things to distract me at home...
As for guidelines, my first one would be to play at the highest level my bankroll could sustain. Sure, I may be confident I could crush the $100 sngs but too many consecutive out-of-the-money finishes would be a catastrophe. So if you have the bankroll and the confidence (backed up by an unbiased appraisal of your skill) play at the highest level you can afford. Playing at too low a level can lead to bad results as maybe you don't care about the stakes enough to truly focus? Second one would be to adjust for the table. At $5 i'm going to play against a lot of people who value TPWK early in the hand or chase runner-runner draws. So I can't fall too in love with an overpair and bluffing in some cases is a no-no. (Especially if I've shown the table a huge bluff in recent memory...)
One final point, it's hard to draw conclusions from a small sample size. You could be in one of the inevitable downturns we all go through. Having a sufficient bankroll should allow you to get through that without too much distress.
Playing a week or two or whatever of $5 SNG's really means nothing.
I disagree..my point is not about adapting, its about finding the most profitable situation. It seems to me to be more advantageous to be against players one can 'outplay' rather than against players that are as AcidJoe put it are 'prepared to gamble' why reduce the game to something as basic as luck? I've been on the downside of the luck, but my point would be the same were I winning, I want to minimize the impact of luck/the cruel hand of the poker Gods, by pitting myself against players I can (forgive me for the vanity) outplay..and you can't do that to someone who hasn't really got a sense of the game and a desire to win (a type of player that would be more present at the $5) It seems to me it is more of a 'showdown' style at the lower limits, less about the finer points of the game and more about the stubborn insistance of taking a hand to the river and seeing who's been offering the right poker sacrifices.
And I'm not looking for a bankroll discussion..I agree with what is written. I'm simply comparing the different levels of the game and asking if in a vacuum the bigger games have a potential to be a more profitable place?
Yes Greg I know that winning third in a $55 is worth more than third in $5, but thanks for the reminder
I was referring to comparing a proportionate ROI- luck and showdown prevalent $5 vs. skill and strategy reliant bigger $buy in (and I'm not saying the 'all' games at said levels will play a certain way but AM inferring that the ave. of games would lean towards this, I think.)
I'll take the cheaper one, thanks.
Also, your sample size sucks.
I predominantly play on Party, and have also for about two months now been playing on APlady. When I started noticing the pattern I mentioned on Stars and considering it I also looked back to my percentages in Party. I had two accounts: Here are the percentages in the money there too. (cancelled the first before opening the second.)
SNG (% of in the money finishes)
1) $6 = 31%
larger buy ins approximately 50%
2) $6=40%
Larger buy ins approx. 50% as well
Interestingly I notice a jump just going to the $11 [1)44% 2)48%] so I'm not suggesting that you must play a 22/55..I just wonder if it might be a good idea to get out of the very bottom buy ins..the ones that are really designed for people just figuring the game out- IF you've made an honest assessment of your ability and bankroll..and the only thing holding you back is the idea presented on the forum often that "you should beat level one to move up to level two etc", for the reasons discussed in earlier posts.
For starters, don't gauge your success solely on ITM finishes, gauge it on your ROI. And secondly, yes there is a VERY strong argument for why you don't want to play the $5+$1's on Party as opposed to the $10+$1's...the rake.
ScoobyD is right on in the ITM vs ROI assessment. During my most recent downswing on tribeca my ITM didn't change much 44% vs 40% but what did change was my ROI since it seemed I couldn't buy a 1st place. I had a crapload of 3rd's with some 2nd's and the odd 1st with a negative ROI. I also bubbled a lot of times which really hurts too.
That being said if you can't beat the party 10's I wouldn't recomment to anyone to tackle the 20's or better.
As I understand your earlier points, you are interested in improving something similar to a 'risk-adjusted rate of return'. I would agree from that perspective, a higher buy-in would quite likely yield a higher return to a better player. And yes, I would put you in the category of 'better player'.
Interesting discussion.
Exactly! How many did you play though? If you are talking like 50 SNG's a $5 you can't draw any conclusions from anything.
If you are a losing player after a thousand or so $5 SNG's then I find it hard to believe you would be a a long term winner at $55.
I was just interested in discussing what I personally thought was an interesting anomally, within my favourite hobby. Not looking for advice, you may have noticed I'm perfectly capable of developing an opinion.
I believe I specifically said "Interested to hear YOUR thoughts" and will now include YOUR experiences related to the different buy ins.
I think there is merit for both sides of the argument..but do not require personal help here..just spinning my wheels.
As I've told people before, the variance in sit and gos (as well as most if not all forms of poker) is utterly mind boggling.
You can be a winning player at a level and lose over THOUSANDS of sit and gos. I'm not exaggerating. Obviously, the more you play the more you are likely to have an idea of your true return on investment, however you can never really know it for sure because by the time you have a reasonable sample of sit and gos (over 5K at least, which most people obviously never even get to), your game has completely changed by then anyway.
Having said all that, if you can win 100-130 buyins to the NEXT level up, you are properly rolled and you're *usually* good enough to move up, but eventually you will hit a ceiling where you have to plug leaks in your game to beat the next level.
Ryan
In that case, what you found as an 'interesting anomoly' was just a burp of variance that means nothing to anyone.
Everyone seems to be telling you that, but you want to insist that you've stumbled onto the profound.
I have to say I enjoy telling you that you haven't.
Wow..are you the guy I told to pull his head out of his ass? If not you should look him up..you two would hit it off famously.
I'm not quite sure what I did to earn such a snotty remark almost a week after the post went dead; but I'll take it as penance. If memory serves your posts often serve only to fuel your ego while you put others down and I find you thoroughly obnoxious. If I haven't already told you that (earning your slap/post)-I am now.
Its a forum, I'm allowed to ask questions and have opinions and you are just as free not to read them. Go be king-of-the-world on someone else's time.