Does upping stakes improve your game?

[rong]

Currently playing $10 Sng, doing rather well. Wondering whether to move up. I briefly went from 5/10 up to $30 on Pacific before I changed sites. Worked OK over maybe 15 games, but I did get rather lucky a few times, and then cashed out the profit and left the site. I then started at lower stakes again on Titan.

If I go from $10 to $20, I only need to win with an ROI of half that I currently achieve to maintain the same hourly rate, right?

Now I expect to playing better opponents, so is it fair to expect my hourly rate to remain the same (ie half my ROI, which would be a fair drop anyway), and my poker ability to increase as I am now playing better competition, and therefore after initial learning phase, my hourly rate to increase?

Or is there a definite chance that in spite of the greater potential profit to be made at higher stakes, you could make a lot more money exploiting your greater edge at lower stakes?

[taipan168]

You're right that you only need half the ROI to maintain the same hourly rate if you double your buyin. Generally speaking, I wouldn't expect your ROI to halve if you move up (which is the reason for doing so).

Definitely move up if you have the bankroll for the level you're moving into (minimum 30 buyins but I'd prefer at least 50) and be prepared to move back down if your roll falls below your minimum for your new level.

The other option to increase your hourly rate is to add more tables at your current level, particularly if you believe the competition is very weak.

[bjsaust]

I say yes to moving up. Its rarely a mistake if you've built your roll up to that point by beating the current stake.

[Nakamura]

Based on your recent posts, I don't think you have enough of a roll to level up. I think around 30BI's is the bare minimum. Thoughts anyone?

[rong]

I have enough, played a lot the last week, have approx 40 buyins. Trying to play 3hrs per day at the mo, 3 tables at a time, so $90 bet per night, with ROI of 40%, so making on average $36 per day, but about $250 per week. So current role approx $500.

But my concern is that if you follow br management and move up every time you have made enough, you will essentially continue to move up until the point when you are no longer profitable, kind of like theory of promotion to the point of incompetance. This must just lead to all the money in poker gradually floating up the stakes with the really good players at high stakes taking everyones money.

At the $10, I hav an ROI of of approx 45% at the moment, and while I am sure this won't last, I think my average at the moment is approx 23% and I think that is sustainable.

It seems whether I move up or increase tables, either option is going to reduce my ROI, but I'm unsure which is better in the medium term, as in the short term I think I may face a loss either way.

So if either way I take a hit, but long term gain is the goal, which do you think is better for increasing hourly rate, concentrating on multitabling to improve there or increasing my buyins.

[taipan168]

I have enough, played a lot the last week, have approx 40 buyins. Trying to play 3hrs per day at the mo, 3 tables at a time, so $90 bet per night, with ROI of 40%, so making on average $36 per day, but about $250 per week. So current role approx $500.

Firstly, at 40% ROI you are most likely running pretty hot. I'd expect ROI at the $10 level to be in the 15-20% range at best over the long term. Secondly, you need 30-50 buyins for the level you're moving TO, not the one you're in at the moment.

But my concern is that if you follow br management and move up every time you have made enough, you will essentially continue to move up until the point when you are no longer profitable, kind of like theory of promotion to the point of incompetance. This must just lead to all the money in poker gradually floating up the stakes with the really good players at high stakes taking everyones money.

That's why even though I have a lot of experience at turbo SNGs, I never moved to the $60 level. I played a few of them and found that there were way too many tight multitablers on each table. Despite having more than enough roll to play the $60s, I maxed out at the $27s and sometimes the $38s. I know quite a few people who play semi-professionally who have done the same thing.

What essentially happens at the highest buyins is that nobody can beat the rake because there aren't enough bad players on those tables (because they either go broke or move back down), so what happens is that they end up handing their money back and forth to each other with the house being the only long term winner. That's why Stars' high stakes SNGs ($100+) are pretty much empty.

At the $10, I hav an ROI of of approx 45% at the moment, and while I am sure this won't last, I think my average at the moment is approx 23% and I think that is sustainable.

Seems a little high to me, as I said above 15-20% is probably more sustainable (but I could be wrong as I haven't played that level in a while).

So if either way I take a hit, but long term gain is the goal, which do you think is better for increasing hourly rate, concentrating on multitabling to improve there or increasing my buyins.

How many tables do you play at present? I wouldn't expect an appreciable drop in ROI until you start getting over 4 tables provided that you use a HUD to cover your attention gaps.

[rong]

Regarding ROI at $10 level, I completely agree that 40% + is unsustainable, but I think that over 20% is sustainable at Titan.

Using the sharkescope HUD here, usually only 2 or 3 players at the table (including myself) are actually profitable, and the ease at which you can own the bubble is shocking.


As for the buyin requirement, I thought 25X buyin would be sufficient, specifically here as at even $20 buy in, the game is softer than I have noticed at other sites. Although I may wait a few more days until I reach 30 buyins before I change stakes, if I change at all, as at the moment it is just something I am considering.

As for multitabling, currently only 3 tables, any more and I feel a real drop in my edge, I just can't concentrate on that many. And I don't have a decent HUD, only sharkscope (which I very much like) which I don't think is suitable for multitabling purposes.

Can I ask what sort of ROI you achieve at the $27 level?

[taipan168]

As for the buyin requirement, I thought 25X buyin would be sufficient, specifically here as at even $20 buy in, the game is softer than I have noticed at other sites. Although I may wait a few more days until I reach 30 buyins before I change stakes, if I change at all, as at the moment it is just something I am considering.

I would strongly recommend at least 30 buyins, the risk of going busto with 25 is just a little bit too high for my liking. The only way I would play with 25 is if I told myself that if I hit a downswing I'd definitely move down if I hit 20 buyins (for the higher level) and be disciplined about doing so (which is harder than it sounds).

Can I ask what sort of ROI you achieve at the $27 level?

Sure you can - I don't have all my PT hands with me at the moment (split over 2 computers) but from memory it fluctuates between 7% and 10% over 2000+ games.

[rong]

hmmmm....that sort of discipline is not my strong point.

And going on your stats, if I hit 7% at $20 I'd actually better off at the $10 (appreciated your's is at $27, but I expect your understanding of ICM & therefore bubble play is better than mine).

I think I will wait until I hit 40 buyins @ $20 level then take 10 of those buyins and set that aside for $20 games, then split my time each night at half for each level.

That way I can continue to build a roll at the $10 level and see how I get on at the $20 level. If I go bust quickly (only counting the 10 x $20 roll) then I will just stick to what I'm good at. Appreciated a bad run could do this, but a bad run to lose 10 buyins is pretty bad varince if it happens quickly(and therefore unlikely), and if so, so be it.

If I fail at the $20 level, I can try more tables at a time, but after my little experiment at the $2 levels, I think I have a long way to go there. Played 12 at $2, (6 at a time) and lost, i think, 9 of them. Gave up at that point.

[Nakamura]

If I fail at the $20 level, I can try more tables at a time, but after my little experiment at the $2 levels, I think I have a long way to go there. Played 12 at $2, (6 at a time) and lost, i think, 9 of them. Gave up at that point.

n = 2 (I think). Multi-tabling isn't for everyone, but you certainly can't make an informed decision when your sample size is so small. The reason your sample size = the number of sets you have played, is because the data in one particular set are not independent e.g. you played a set when you were tired, or you played at tables with several of the same regs. Thus, although each set may have an infinite number of tables, the sample size still = 1. You can't have no pseudo-replication!

[rong]

It was after chatting (via forum) with you a week or so ago that I decided to give multitabling another go. Against general advice to add a table at a time I might add.

I tried before then, failed misurably, tried again with the 2 stes mentioned above, failed again.

I just think it isn't for me. I completely losse track of every table. A lot of my edge comes from when we are down to 6 players or less with considered aggression. I just can't do that with more than 3 tables. I have no idea who's been pushing/shoving recently, and although a hud tells you general stats, I don't see this as that useful, as my stats for a game initally would show me as tighter than a badger in a sock, but that changes rather rapidly if the opportunity presents itself. I really don't see how you can have much of an edge with that many tables.

For example, ICM works based on opponents ranges, but how can you possibly have an idea of a players ranges when you have 8 tables running. All you can base it on is overall stats, when I feel all that matters is behavior over say the last 10 hands.

[Nakamura]

For example, ICM works based on opponents ranges, but how can you possibly have an idea of a players ranges when you have 8 tables running. All you can base it on is overall stats, when I feel all that matters is behavior over say the last 10 hands.

This comes with practice. Eventually you develop an intuition in situations. By the time you hitting the 100/150 level your HUD stats will generally indicate who is A) TAGG B) weak-tight C) loose-passive D) LAGG and you will adjust your calling and pushing ranges appropriately. Obviously this isn't as accurate as watching each table, but this is why multi-tablers trade higher volume for lower ROI. Getting any better reads than that while multi-tabling is probably wishful thinking.

HEM are adding a feature to their HUD that will allow you to view opps stats over the last X many hands. Although, I think it would be more appropriate to view an opps stats at particular blind levels (although his play may depend on his stack size).

[taipan168]

hmmmm....that sort of discipline is not my strong point.

It needs to be even if you have 40 buyins for the $20 games (which is actually $880, don't forget the rake). If you hit a very bad downswing you HAVE to move down otherwise you'll go busto.

I think I will wait until I hit 40 buyins @ $20 level then take 10 of those buyins and set that aside for $20 games, then split my time each night at half for each level.

The other way is to take shots at the $20s. Play $10 games, when you win one then play a $20, if you finish ITM then play another $20, if you finish OTM then go back to playing $10s until you win one. That way you're freerolling at the $20s and if you hit a good run so your BR goes over $880, you can move up permanently.

Appreciated a bad run could do this, but a bad run to lose 10 buyins is pretty bad varince if it happens quickly(and therefore unlikely), and if so, so be it.

I've had multiple downswings of as much as 40 buyins at the $27s (which you'll see if you look at my Sharkscope chart) so a 10 buyin downswing is only a minor speed bump which I don't notice anymore

If I fail at the $20 level, I can try more tables at a time, but after my little experiment at the $2 levels, I think I have a long way to go there. Played 12 at $2, (6 at a time) and lost, i think, 9 of them. Gave up at that point.

Seriously dude, take Naka's advice to add one table at a time. That's what most of us have done (and I only play max 4).

[Kijjo]

I would suggest trying to cram four into your screen in quarters - although it can get stuffy, I like being able to watch the action on all tables at the same time, which it sounds like you're trying to do.
For SNGs, my only problem is once I get heads-up on any of them, I feel like that takes so much focus I'm screwed on the others - or sometimes I don't play as well heads-up and end up taking second while giving more attention to other games.
While many many people play sets where all the games start at the same time, I've been staggering mine lately. I wait an orbit, then sign up for the next one. By the time the second one starts, we've usually done two orbits (I play 6max). Sometimes if folks get crazy, one game will "catch up" to another as far as number of players, but then I still know the blinds are behind and can pace myself. I always lay them out clockwise to keep the blind levels ez to keep track of.
I eventually hope to stack, but I'm just not ready for that yet.