Poker Discussion
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
First let me say that my post is in NO way trying to lesson the skills of the top players online. I have watched enough of them play and followed their results to know that they have many skills, tricks and abilities that carries them to have consistent results. I was just curious what you all thought about how the signifigance of a large bankroll relates to taking a good player to the NEXT level and becoming very good or even great.
In my opinion, I think that having a large bankroll is one of many elements needed for good players to become great. Most (player a) are forced to grind there way up, being careful to not tilt away their winnings or taking too many shots above their bankroll. It is only then, that the good players are able to start proving themselves and learning advanced skill-sets that would be useless at the lower levels. Others(player b), though, get a little lady luck on their side and break through in a tournament cash before their skills are fully developed.
My question is, will player B go on to improve faster than player A, because: a.) larger bankroll will allow them to play in bigger buy-in tournaments, b.) against better opponents and c.) with more confidence because they can withstain more and d.) they are able to value money less, which many pros have said is important ? And to what extent does this play a role?
|
|
|
|
I'm grinding up my bankroll on SNGs and I've just changed my bankroll limits so I need 35 buy-ins to step up a level and I go back down again if I drop below 30. This is my way of coping with 7 straight losses - ie I won't tilt if I lose even 10 straight games.
When I do step up I don't have the additional worry about losing bigger sums of cash for the same losing streak. Being in my comfort zone means I can focus on playing better poker, so I think I am learning faster.
Player B will be comfortable, but he'll get creamed in the process of learning ... it won't take too long for player A to get a similar bankroll anyway, but he'll have built the confidence that comes from consistent winning.
|
|
|
Interesting take xperu. I like that viewpoint and can see the rationale behind it. I can see how it is especially applicable in the Sit-N-Go scenario, where consistency and discipline seem to trump a few number 1 finishes.
Do you think it would be the same for a cash or MTT player?? Remember I am talking about a player that is already good. If you were win a large sum of money do you feel you could provide good results at higher or even the highest of levels?? If so, it seems player B would have the edge.
|
|
|
|
Well lets say player B wins a 55k gtd on stars, then a ft's a 25k, by lots of luck and undeveloped skils. Then player A grinds and still only has a bankroll of a 1/5th to 1/6th of player B. While player A is grinding it out with micro donks playing the tight "try to place" style to build his bankroll, Player B has moved up limits and is now duking it out with the top players in the 55 rebuy or high limit freezeout. Yes Player A is building a roll and Player B would be foolishly losing his, but if Player B pays attention to how the others play, with positions, different hands, changing gears etc he's learning how the best play by experiencing it rather then hearing about it on forums or from the subscription sites. Then if he does get a win or a strong place he has more confidence because he stood against the better players in the game rather then trashing some donks in a micro. So yes player B will improve faster if he's smart while player A might be left in a micro-limit hell. Because the hardest part is to breakthrough no matter how good you are.
|
|
|
Just my opinion, dont want to step on any toes. First off, if ur good enough to play with the top dogs then u would have no problems killing micro games. The point is if u cant beat the micro games, ur prolly not gonna beat the bigger games. Second, theres nothing like having a sufficient bankroll to build ur confidence. If ur worried about loosing the buyin u wont play ur best game imo.. Even if u learn a few things while taking ur shot most likely ur still gonna be broke trying to use those moves on the micro donks anyway..
Just stay at the level within ur bankroll till u build it up. Im not sayin if u have won some money u cant take a try at one or two tourneys alittle higher buyin than u normally would play. But, when u figure it out u will know when to move up.
|
|
|
Interesting topic...I like it a lot. If we could get a lot of points of view here, this one could be good for the Strategy Archives.
My gut feel is that the people with the bankroll to play in bigger games right away improve at a much greater rate than those who are grinding it up, for the reasons that you mentioned. I look at someone like Haralobos Voulgaris, who says that the first game he ever sat in was $25/$50 NL, because he already had a huge bankroll from betting sports. If you have the aptitude for games that Bob does, and you're smart enough to pick up on what's going on, you'll definitely get better, quicker, than if you sat in a $1/$2 game for months and moved up slowly.
The problem is that I think you HAVE to be smart enough to understand what's going on. I'll compare it to learning mathematics in school. If you have a knack for math, you don't need to grind out the basics nearly as hard to get to the advanced concepts. When I was a senior in high school, taking pre-calc, I found an old differential equations book, typically a 3rd-year college text, and it made perfect sense to me. I understood how the problems were being solved, and more importantly, started to see some of the applications as to real-life solutions offered by differential calculus. If you're the C-student taking Algebra II as a senior in high school, you can still learn differential calculus, but you can't do it by making a big leap ahead.
The other point is that you may learn certain tricks and plays earlier, but without other key fundamentals of poker (such as bankroll management, tilt control, etc.) that you can pick up much better as a grinder (IMO), you'll never really be as successful of a player at that level. You'll just be able to hang in the game. It's not the same thing.
Good topic, Tiburon. Thanks.
|
|
|
thx for you input graps, I liked your analogy. I'd be interested on hearing the opinions of more accomplished players and even some of the top ranked online pros. People who have had the big wins and how playing at the higher levels effected their skill level. I think, like all things in poker, it depends on each situation, but perhaps there is a generality that can be applied to most players.
Its just something I've been picking over in my brain, as I'm sure many people wonder how they'd fair if they were given a break and opportunity to "step it up" and play with the big boys.
Perhaps those who have more experience than I will chime in with their thoughts!
|
|
|
My story. I played a $54 13k gtd exponentially underfunded. I placed 4th for $800+change. I had a roll of $1500. I proceeded to donk off the next week by buying into the Weekly Deal on PokerRoom ($320). I then proceeded to play some $33 SNGs. Had a hot run then came crashing down. I was crushed. My roll returned to a measly $400 (relatively speaking, I realize now I'm thank ful for the privilege of just being able to play). Then Jennifear saved me with her "Bankroll/Cashout strategy for low-limit SNG grinders." I'm now grinding $11 SNGs properly bankrolled and am facing variance (dropped 15% ROI over the last 3 weeks), but am happy that I have learned to manage my bankroll.
Do I still want to make it with the big boys someday? Sure, but I'll do it when personally my skills and roll are ready.
|
|
|
I think there is a generality that can be applied...very few players have the bankroll to learn how to play in a big buy-in game. 99.9% of the people who step up without being properly funded and/or skilled go busto. Assuming everyone starts the experiment with an unlimited roll, I might lower that number to 85-90%. I'd say that only 10-15% of poker players are capable of playing in a really serious game ($25/$50 NL or higher, $100/$200 limit or higher), ever, regardless of how many times they try it.
In my case, I think it's a matter of skill in tournaments, and toss in the "nerve" factor for big-stakes cash game play. I've had some good results in some of the $100 and $200 buy-in MTTs, the Sunday majors. But it's certainly not where the top players are, and I think there's some holes in my game that definitely need addressed. In a big cash game, I think I'd just freeze up if I had to make a giant bluff, even if I knew it was the right play. I had to outgrow the hesitation on a $30 bluff in a .25/.50 game, then $50 in a .50/1 game, then $100 or more in a $1/$2 game.
|
|
|
|
|
PocketFives.com Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
Carbon Poker Sorting Tables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|