5NL vs 10NL

Why move up to 10NL when blinds are less and max buy in is the same?
Wouldn't 5NL be better choice to build up your roll with cheaper blinds and weaker opponents?

Damn I wish I didn't cash out 99% of my role ($1100) in Oct 07. Now I'm back down playing these boring micro levels.

Originally Posted by Pythonic

Now I'm back down playing these boring micro levels.

I think these micro levels are really entertaining.

Cause winning 2BB/hr at 5NL is half as much as at 10NL I suppose.
And I doubt the opposition is not that much different at the levels.

- players buy in even SHORTER, monetarily.
- players dont stack off quite as light when 200 bb's deep (in theory, completely disregarding a 5NL donkey who stacks off with middle pair)
- implied odds are a much bigger factor. (again, disregarding a 5NL donkey)

just because stacks CAN be twice as deep does NOT mean players will take advantage of it, or USE it properly.

however, that said, any decent player SHOULD buy in as deep as possible at the lowest limits. you are simply leaving too much money on the table against such horrible players. my completely unresearched guess is that if you can beat the game for 4+/100, you should be buying in as full as possible. if you are only breaking even, you should maybe consider shorting and going south.

Originally Posted by Chopper

- players buy in even SHORTER, monetarily.


however, that said, any decent player SHOULD buy in as deep as possible at the lowest limits. you are simply leaving too much money on the table against such horrible players. my completely unresearched guess is that if you can beat the game for 4+/100, you should be buying in as full as possible. if you are only breaking even, you should maybe consider shorting and going south.

I disagree with that. If you can afford to buy in for $10 you should be playing $10 nl. If you have $50 in your br you shouldn't be buying in for 1/5 of your roll, or 1/10 at $100.

My answer to the op is that you make twice the money. The bets are bigger, the pots are bigger, the players are the same.

i love how chopper capitalizes his words he wants to enunciate.

yeah, BAAAAAAABBBYYY. lol.

pank, i think you are misunderstanding what i said. i dont see what you are disagreeing with. you've confused me.

Originally Posted by shazbox

Cause winning 2BB/hr at 5NL is half as much as at 10NL I suppose.
And I doubt the opposition is not that much different at the levels.

I don't think bb/hr matters when stack sizes are the same (I see plenty of people short stacking 10NL) and the fact that you lose less money on the blinds when you fold out of position or don't have a hand.

Originally Posted by Chopper

yeah, BAAAAAAABBBYYY. lol.

pank, i think you are misunderstanding what i said. i dont see what you are disagreeing with. you've confused me.

I don't agree that you should buy in for $10 at 5 nl. If you can afford that you should be playing 10 nl. That's all.

buying in for 200 bb's can be better than playing at a higher level.

the blinds are the same at 5NL whether you buy in normal or deep. but, the potential gain and loss is greater. as a deep stack, you have the power to push shorter players AI quicker. there is a "mental edge," imo. you can look like you have nothing to lose. thus, another player may not push YOU in because he thinks you will call him.

playing 200 deep instead of moving up can also be nearly as profitable. the players' skills are worse at 5NL than at 10NL, theoretically. therefore, you get more money on the table with a skill advantage, and thats rarely a bad thing.

by moving up, you may also be playing more timidly. by putting 200 bb's on the table, at your comfortable level, you may avoid said timidity.

and, btw, why do they play 700 bb's deep on HSP instead of simply raising the blinds to $2500/$5000?

care to share your "cons." i'm not being a dick, i just want to see a little more detail on your "argument."