I am at 100NL now with the right bankroll - Now What????

[Hornsta9]

So I have been grinding away at micro stakes starting with $500 at 25NL, took that to $1500 and cashed out, did it again but this time with no cashout. I got to $2,000 and moved to $100NL and have been there since the beginning of May. I have run really really well but also my play has become much better and I have run at 11ptBB/100 over 5,000 hands and so i am at approx $3,500 now (with some rakeback included). This is not a Brag post and I know that it 11ptBB/100 is not sustainable long term (100K+ hands).

I have been learning to play an ABC TAG game and stop making the silly mistakes, punishing the fish and generally playing a standard game. The standard TAG game finally clicked with me when I was at 50NL and I realised I did not have to do anything fancy to beat that level as long as I stayed away from most of the TAG multi-tabling regulars and concentrated on punishing the LAGtard Fishes.

I took this to 100NL and it has worked wonders, with Fishes loving to stack off with TPTK and less sometimes. I have also saved so much money by not being a station with my big hands when I know I am beat (Hand below not included).

Anyway, I gave 200NL a shot at Ladbrokes yesterday (where I am working their $500 bonus) and realised that this is a massive step up from 100NL. Firstly there are considerably less fish at these levels, say 1 per table, where it was very common to see between 2-3 at 6 max tables. Now I don't know whether this is because it is Ladbrokes and the games aren't that great or whether it is standard at most sites. Any ideas?

The other thing I have noticed are that the TAGS are so much more aggressive and tricky than at 100NL. On several occasions in the 300 hands or so the TAGS were playing less than standard with lots of double barrels, bluff raises and definately more 3-betting pre-flop (which I expected).

For example I didn't expect to see this hand considering he was playing 21/7/1?

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1088637

Don't get me wrong here I think I played this badly. I think I should have folded to the push but as I didn't I was amazed at his hand considering his stats. I also realise that stats do not = reads but at 100NL a 21/7 in the SB is not usually calling in the PF w/45s and then calling a C-bet of 3/4 pot w/bottom pair.

I guess what I am trying to say is:

As the games seem to be a lot tighter (most were runnng between 10/10 - 22/15) than at 100NL and much trickier/aggressive post flop how can I improve my game from a 17/12/3? Do I even need to? Should I just continue my ABC game but just continue to find the 35+/15+/1 fishes?

I have no idea whether any of this made any sense and whether anyone can be bothered to reply but any advice of how to move to the next level in poker thinking would be greatly appreciated.

If I have failed to give enough info about my game or anything else for people to give any advice please say so and I will respond.

Thanks in advance

[euphoricism]

i dont think yorue ready for 200NL at 4k. Thats just me. I'm past that and still playing 100.

[Hornsta9]

i dont think yorue ready for 200NL at 4k. Thats just me. I'm past that and still playing 100.

Yeah thats a fair point. My intention is to take a few shots around $4k but I am hoping to try and move up to 200NL permanantly when i have $6k+. obviously it depends on whether I get my ass handed to me or not, which i suspect will happen to me at the first few attempts.

Have you tried any 200NL yet? How did you find it?

[Miffed22001]

this game isnt all taht tough, just open your range a little as opps are decent 20/10 players themselves so you need to push your implied odds a touch but it isnt a big step up from 100nl IMO.

[The_Bankroll]

here's what I realized playing some games like these;
against most TAGs you should have one big advantage over them; you know how they play. it's probably the same style you've played for quite a few hands. there is no such thing as an unexploitable strategy, sit and think about what are the exploitable parts of your game, and realize its exploitable in them too.

btw, I think you played the hand posted just fine

[larsmars]

Well done and congrats on being a consistent winner.

I agree that Ladbrokes 200NL is tougher than 100NL, but it's still very beatable with the right skill level and bankroll. Defineately more aggressive. Some of the regulars play pretty standard TAG though, and i suppose they are winning.

I have no idea what your opponent put you on in the hand you posted, he is actually kinda nitty. You could probably find a better table as this one was pretty tight and filled with regulars.

Just don't have too high expectations. You have a pretty marginal bankroll and pretty marginal experience at 100NL to be moving up. Best of luck, see you at the tables.

[Hornsta9]

Well done and congrats on being a consistent winner.

I agree that Ladbrokes 200NL is tougher than 100NL, but it's still very beatable with the right skill level and bankroll. Defineately more aggressive. Some of the regulars play pretty standard TAG though, and i suppose they are winning.

I have no idea what your opponent put you on in the hand you posted, he is actually kinda nitty. You could probably find a better table as this one was pretty tight and filled with regulars.

Just don't have too high expectations. You have a pretty marginal bankroll and pretty marginal experience at 100NL to be moving up. Best of luck, see you at the tables.

Thanks for your comments Lars and everyone elses. Very appreciated.

That particular table was really tight but there was one HUGE fish on the table when I started and he had a full buyin. I think by the time the above hand had happened he had left.

The main reason for my post is that in the long term I want to move up to at least 200NL hopefully 400NL and use poker as a part-time job (I work full time and don't need the poker money but an extra few hundred £££'s will be most welcome). I just wanted to see peoples opinions on how to adapt my game to the higher stakes.

This particular 300 hands or so was just a silly shot and I by no means intend to do it again until I am over $5,000 based on what people have said, and I don't intend to move up permanantly until I have at least 30 buyins. Obviously if it is too tough for me I will move down.

I found that the 200NL games at Ladbrokes were all pretty taggish with very few fish. I am hoping the Party games, where I will be moving full time, have more fish in them.

Anyway, thanks again for your comments.

Martyn