Is there really any point.....

In attempting to build a bankroll starting at 5/10c limit games, if you can help it of course?

What I'm trying to get at of course, and I'm sure there are many posters on here who can answer from experience, is that surely there must be a considerable difference in player quality/capabilities as the levels increase. Now before someone comes on and states the obvious, I'm talking about for example a difference between 5/10c and $1/2 or $3/6 limit.

I play on Pacific and am trying to gather a few $$ at the minute to deposit a decent size roll for maybe $1/2 limit and hoping as everyone does to build a roll through the limits from there with time.

My point is that I see a lot of posts on here urging people to start at the micro limits and work up. In my experience 5/10c at Pacific is totally soul destroying, the betting is capped pre flop maybe 1 hand in 3 or 4 and there are umpteen callers! It just is not taken seriously enough IMO for anyone to consider starting there with the hope of building any sort of roll.. 25/50c isn't much better!

Thoughts????

I can't imagine playing 5c/10c limit for any great length of time. If you don't yet know how to play the game it's great...beyond that it's a snoozefest.
Oh, and yes Pacific is a fishpond so expect lots of callers with all sorts of wacked out stuff to the river.

I'll admit, though, that I frequently play 5c/10c Omaha at pacific for relaxation/break from the NL tables...low stress, lots of callers chasing, obvious what people are holding etc.

destroying your soul is one thing; destroying your BR is another. these games are pretty beatable. variance is high but you should also be refocusing. starting hand requirements can be loosened considerably; play strong draws passively, letting the pointless aggression build pots for you. go for overcalls.

i've never played pacific, but the rules are generally the same. you must beat the fish regularly before you can beat the mostly-fish, then semifish, and so on

If you know how to beat these tables, it is fairly easy to build a bankroll up. A table getting capped 25% of the time preflop is a gold mine. even at .5/.10, a table like this should be able to return $1-2 an hour for a good player. Just move up the ladder. Once you get 100BB for a micro-limit, move up to it. If you fall to around 75, move back down. You might see-saw a lot, but eventually you will get up to real stakes. I've been down to the .02/.04 tables from bad BR management and still built up to $2000 in a month. It can be done. You just have to know how to beat the tables. Go read SSH by Ed Miller et. al. and you can crush them.

Remember to be properly bankrolled for your stake once you get to .50/1. 250-300BB is necessary.

A good player will win more bb/100 at 5c/10c then they can win at 1/2 limit. You can complain about all the terrible players, but in actual fact that is a very good thing. I would be a millionaire if all my highish stakes tables played like the micro limits.

You cant run before you learn to walk.

Only once you beat the micro limits move up to higher limits

Only once you beat the micro limits move up to higher limits

More text book autoprogramed responses, honestly guys, gl

Originally Posted by weeian

Only once you beat the micro limits move up to higher limits

More text book autoprogramed responses, honestly guys, gl

Aah, the classic "I dont like what your saying, so I'm going to just pretend you dont know what your talking about" attitude...

You want the truth... then lets see if you can handle it without the sugar coating.

If you cant STOMP the micro game, then your not good enough to move up.

End of story.

Sure, the skills that you beat the micro game with will not enable you to just sit down and beat the big games...

... but the skills that you need to beat the big games does INCLUDE the skills you need to beat the $.05/$.10 game.

It just is not taken seriously enough IMO for anyone to consider starting there with the hope of building any sort of roll.. 25/50c isn't much better!

I'm living proof that your wrong. Thats where I started. I had a bankroll bankroll crash in july of last year(not that I had made that much before then). On July 19 I was down to my last $5.50.

So I sat down at the lowest limit available, and started working on rebuilding my bankroll. This time I didnt try to skip levels. This time played until I had about 15 buy-in’s for the next level and then would move up.

From that $5.50 I had on 7/19/05, I ended the year with $12,263.60 .. and so far this year i'm up another $4,270.85. Going to the basics and really learning is what enabled me to reach where I am now.

Aah, the classic "I dont like what your saying, so I'm going to just pretend you dont know what your talking about" attitude...

Partly true at least!

Thats very impressive, what sort of time are you putting in at the tables, like how many hours a week or day?

Also, are you multitabling or playing one table?

When you speak of "15 buy ins" I assume your playing NL as opposed to limit?

Laeelin speaks the truth. If you can't utterly destroy the micro limits, then maybe poker's not for you (or you need to fix some leaks ).

I've heard so many people (myself included last year) say that they can't beat the micro limits, "because the play there is so terrible." That's a piss poor excuse.

Put in the time and effort to improve your game, and the money will come.

Originally Posted by weeian

When you speak of "15 buy ins" I assume your playing NL as opposed to limit?

Yes he is, substitute 15 buyins with 300bb

Correct, I was playing NL... However, Limit is actually a little easier to move up in than NL is because you need so much less of a bankroll for the same limits... (note: I'm not 100% sure on that, it's just what I understand from the limit players I've talked to...)

I also multitable...

Also, at first it was a few hours a day, but as my $/hour kept moving up I started thinking about going full time... And then I went full time, and have never looked back (well only when I wanted to cheer myself up ... even after a bad beat, poker >> "finding that %$#^@ bug in a program" )

I've heard so many people (myself included last year) say that they can't beat the micro limits, "because the play there is so terrible." That's a piss poor excuse.

OK OK I'l lcome clean, you've hit the nail on the head there partner, I have whipped the micro game before and got as far as a $1/2 limit bankroll (300BB) but then I sorta got addicted to 5 man NL SnG's lol. The swings, as I'm sure you know, at these games are massive, unbeatable for a few weeks, then can't win an arguement for a few weeks after that!

You're right, in hindsight it is a piss poor excuse, the truth is that I just don't want to play with the crazy idiots who play 5/10c (no offence to all who are serious down there) and there are many many idiots, its a long hard grind but I know it pays off in the end, i s'pose my point is that it's hard trying to get your best game goin 24/7 when you're liftin max pots of $2 odds! A lot of effort for not much return... to get back to the original post you'll notice that I said " if you can help it" meaning of course that if you are in a position to deposit a few $$$ and start at say 50/1 or 1/2 if your that lucky, then why bother with crazy micro poker, that said I didn't make it clear in the original post that I have already whipped the micro game up through to $1/2.

BTW, I've repeated the whole SnG addiction thing twice in the last few years, I've started with nothing the first time, $5 I won on a freeroll NL tourney on Pacific and blasted the micro limits in a matter of months playing mostly at weekends.

Well then the answer to your question is obvious.

Two things you need to move up:
1) Bankroll
2) You think you can eat the next level.

If you can supply both then what are you waiting for.

A word of warning though, watch your discipline at the tables. And textbook answers are in textbooks for a reason.

Originally Posted by iRICHeyes

Well then the answer to your question is obvious.

Two things you need to move up:
1) Bankroll
2) You think you can eat the next level.

If you can supply both then what are you waiting for.

A word of warning though, watch your discipline at the tables. And textbook answers are in textbooks for a reason.

Id add a third requirement...

3) You must be able to beat your current level....

... which is why you would think you may be able to beat the next level.

But yeah, very true.

Originally Posted by iRICHeyes

... which is why you would think you may be able to beat the next level.

But yeah, very true.

Yeah , but people start to think that they can beat the next level even though they cant beat the one they are currently on because they think "I would be able to win if only they were smart enough to fold bottom pair/whatever when I bluff."

Nice post everyone.

I think I’m one of those “I’m too good to be playing at this level”, but I have already lost my hole bankroll playing out of my league! So I’m grinding it out at the micro limits and it is tuff going, but winnable in the long run.

I hear “crush them”, “stomp them”….. all the time when reading post here, but could someone please give me a definition of what “crushing them” really means?

Beating it for a healthy rate, only getting stacked to bad beats, making the best decision every time etc.

As far as limit goes, crushing a game is relative to the stakes/ calibre of opponents. Crushing 100/200 might be 2BB/100. Crushing 3/6 might be 4 or 5 BB/100.
As far as micro-limits go, I would say crushing .25/.50 would be around 10BB/100 and crushing a game like .05/.10 or .10/.20 around 15BB/100. I've played as low as .02/.04 and believe that game can be beat for 20+BB/100.
My opinion is that if you can't beat .25/.50 for 4 or 5BB/100 you probably shouldn't move up yet. Say you make 2-3BB/100 at .25/50. You are doing well, soundly beating the game, but .50/1.00 is a different animal altogether, and if you only make 3BB/100 at .25/.50, you've got some fairly big problems with your game. Even if that problem is not knowing how to adjust for horrible players, it should be fixed before moving up.

I made a very simple and short post on the limit forum last week, and promptly got flamed because it was obvious and unhelpful. Here it is again because I think it isn't obvious for some struggling players (the reason I posted it), and can be helpful for them (no hard feelings on the negative response):

To become a great poker player you should first learn to crush the bad players because that's where all your money comes from. Then you should learn to beat the good players too.

If you play micro-limits like a 'good' player plays at higher limits, you are passing up on 2 opportunities. The first is making the most of your situation by not making the proper adjustments. The second is not taking the opportunity to learn the adjustments to make for bad players. Neither is an opportunity you should pass up. The ability to crush a horrible opponent may not come up as often in a 5/10 game as it does in a .05/.10 game, but you do see players at 5/10 that are just as bad as the bad .05/.10 players. You will run into horrible players at any level and you need to know how to profit the most from them. It is one of the key skills that should be picked up at the micro-limits on your voyage up the poker ladder. Once you get to the higher stakes, you will make most of your money off the worst 10-20% of players.

Yeah , but people start to think that they can beat the next level even though they cant beat the one they are currently on because they think "I would be able to win if only they were smart enough to fold bottom pair/whatever when I bluff."

Bluffin at micro stakes poker! Now theres a novelty, more chance of AA standing up to 6 callers than a bluff being successful. As well as that, its not the bottom pair players that are the problem, 9 times out of 10 when you get rivered at micro poker, which happens a lot, its to someone who started 47 off or the like to capped pre flop betting and rivered a crazy straight, the other classic is the any suited any position players who start any 2 suited cards even to capped betting and river a flush. There is no shaking these players regardless of how many raises and re's go in!

Someone corret me if I'm wrong but surely this doesn't happen up the levels at higher stakes, or, if it does still happen, its not so widespread?

Thanks midaso and xanadu you have both even me valuable advise in the past. Being a new poker player I’m always looking up terms and abbreviations. I don’t fully understand “15BB/100”. I know BB is Big Bet or Big Blind, but for this I believe we are talking Big Bet. I’m guessing the “100” is hands dealt to you?

So if I’m playing .10/.20 limit I should average (2*.20*15) $6 every 100 hands in the long run, correct?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I’m trying to be a student of the game and students need to ask questions.

BB/100 is big bets per 100 hands.
And those numbers I threw out are rough guesses. The higher stake #s I threw out are not from experience, but just ballpark guesses to illustrate a point. The low stakes #s are from my experience at very loose very bad tables that are typical to those stakes. They are based on at most 10-20k hands at each level, and not the 100k+ you really need to know a winrate. You should not feel like you are doing badly if you can't beat .10/.20 for 15BB/100. I do think you should be able to beat it for at least 5BB/100 before even thinking about moving up. There is a difference between the levels, and you will probably make as much at the lower stake even if you can technically beat the higher stake. Variance hits you much harder if you are an even/below average player than if you are clearly beating a game.

15BB/100 for .10/.20 could be off quite a bit. As I said, it's based on at most 20k hands of experience. But I really think you should have the ability to beat it for 10 or 12 BB/100 if you are thinking about playing .50/1.00 or higher. You probably should be able to beat .25/.50 for 6 or 7 BB/100 before moving up. If you can't, you haven't learned all you should from the small stakes or you are playing much better players than the ones I did.

I won't say i'm the world's best player, but I started with 50 and worked it up to about 18,000 over 7 months and I'm still improving.

The point I'm trying to make is that I could not beat the pacific fishfest when I played there. I played 0.25/0.50 and 0.50/1.00 at that time, fixed limit. It was the only site where I actually lost all of my bonus money. Recently I took a little time off to clear a paradise poker bonus that was sittng there for a while, and did it via $0.5/1.00 limit (don't ask why i regressed back to that game) and I just couldn't beat it. 7 players see flops when u raise, just keep calling and calling and giving each other odds: lost $50 over 900 hands or so... so about -5.5/100, admittedly over a small sample size. It WAS demoralizing.

I'm not saying that the fishfests are unbeatable 'cos they certainly are. But they require a different playing style and a different way to make money than more "normal" tables (say prima). With a proviso that u have a sufficient bankroll, it can be a healthy thing to move up. That said, if you can't beat 1/2, moving up is just gonna get u killed faster. What's more, what u learn from beating the ultra fishy tables will not necessarily make u a winner on the standardly fishy tables.

IF you have the means to deposit, then do so and see how you go at a higher limit, so long as you're constantly reading and learning and analyzing your play and you're not playing with scared money. If you can't deposit, then i guess u just have to build ur roll. Casino whore, freerolls, or be infuriated

It is also true that if you don't care about $2, you will not play good poker. I mean, put me on even a $10 table and unless i'm doing it for a reason, I'd play at 50% my potential if i was lucky. Of course, if you don't have the capacity to get a $150 roll then $2 should mean something to you. Don't play at stakes that you just don't care about (the counter argument is that it's not the $2 you should care about, but developing the discipline, and making sure u actually ARE a winning player, and the satisfaction of winning at any stakes means you should have sufficient motivation should you start low)