When to move up
Jan. 12th, 2006 12:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksBluff wrote in a message here a couple of weeks ago about the Ray Zee principle that you should move up in stakes when things are going well and move back down when they are not. I was instinctively uncomfortable with this theory, but it took me until now to formulate my thoughts coherently.
There is an understandable reason for moving up when things are going well — you have the bankroll to do it. And so for many of the players at the highest stakes, the path to those levels has normally been "do well, move up, get spanked, move back down, do well, move up, get spanked, move back down" and so on, until you get a "do well, move up, do well" sequence.
The other understandable reason for moving up when things are going well is that you are full of confidence. And, if you go into a game thinking that you are going to lose, you are probably doomed. So it makes sense to go into a new game thinking that you can beat it.
However, just because the people who have reached the top have done it that way, that doesn't make it the best way.
The problem with moving up when things have been going well is that it is too results-oriented. You are likely to have been going well when you have been lucky. So, you move up, the regression to the mean kicks in, and your win rate falls dramatically, the confidence that you had vanishes, and you start losing.
Ideally, I think, you should move up to a higher level when the following facts are in place:
1) You anticipate that your expected win is greater at the higher level than at the level you are currently playing.
2) You are confident that you can beat the higher level.
3) You have sufficient bankroll to play the higher level.
4) You are not on a kind of "winner's tilt" (or, even worse, on a loser's tilt) which will affect your rational attitude to the game
This would seem to dictate against moving up when you are running well and would seem to be some explanation for the problems that nearly all the top-flight players had in moving up through the levels.
Far better, I suspect, to move up a level after a period of stasis, when you have been winning not at an exceptional and probably unsustainable rate, but at a nice rate. You need to have suffered a few bad beats and still be recording winning sessions. Your confidence comes not from good results, but from a rational assessment of your own skills compared to the average player's skills at the lower level. You don't need to be just beating the losers at this level, You need to be beating the winners.
Then, perhaps after a quiet month when not much has happened, you have a long think about things and say to yourself "right, I am ready".
What you definitely don't do is hit a hot streak on a Friday night, punp up your bankroll nicely, and zoom into a game two levels higher in an attempt to spin it up even further.
My idea here is that, when you do make the carefully considered decision to move up, you will not be moving back down when you hit a bad run (since that, too, is being results-oriented). Your decision was, as far as you are concerned, irrevocable (or at least permanent until the stats show that there is a 95% chance that you are a loser at the new level!)
There was a nice line on EstonB's blog recently. It went roughly along the lines of "I got one step closer to verifying empirically that I'm a losing 10-20 SH player when I 10-table.".
It sounds humorously intended, but it raises a valid serious point. This is the right way to approach online limit, not in a dilettanteish "try this, try that" kind of way, and sticking with the game where you are lucky. You need large samples, you need to test, you need to analyze.
And, yes, I am perfectly aware that I have broken all these rules with my mnoves up to three tables and back again....
++++
And finally, a post on 2+2's Internet gambling forum. I'm sorry, but it just made me smile. But, this is what happens when too many multi-tablers chase too few fishes... What's puzzling is that the poster seems unable to associate cause and effect...
I may just be running bad, but it seems like ever since November, Bodog 25NL and 50NL is full of multitabling weak-tight nut peddlers. As a multitabling weak-tight nut peddler myself, I find this terrible.
There is an understandable reason for moving up when things are going well — you have the bankroll to do it. And so for many of the players at the highest stakes, the path to those levels has normally been "do well, move up, get spanked, move back down, do well, move up, get spanked, move back down" and so on, until you get a "do well, move up, do well" sequence.
The other understandable reason for moving up when things are going well is that you are full of confidence. And, if you go into a game thinking that you are going to lose, you are probably doomed. So it makes sense to go into a new game thinking that you can beat it.
However, just because the people who have reached the top have done it that way, that doesn't make it the best way.
The problem with moving up when things have been going well is that it is too results-oriented. You are likely to have been going well when you have been lucky. So, you move up, the regression to the mean kicks in, and your win rate falls dramatically, the confidence that you had vanishes, and you start losing.
Ideally, I think, you should move up to a higher level when the following facts are in place:
1) You anticipate that your expected win is greater at the higher level than at the level you are currently playing.
2) You are confident that you can beat the higher level.
3) You have sufficient bankroll to play the higher level.
4) You are not on a kind of "winner's tilt" (or, even worse, on a loser's tilt) which will affect your rational attitude to the game
This would seem to dictate against moving up when you are running well and would seem to be some explanation for the problems that nearly all the top-flight players had in moving up through the levels.
Far better, I suspect, to move up a level after a period of stasis, when you have been winning not at an exceptional and probably unsustainable rate, but at a nice rate. You need to have suffered a few bad beats and still be recording winning sessions. Your confidence comes not from good results, but from a rational assessment of your own skills compared to the average player's skills at the lower level. You don't need to be just beating the losers at this level, You need to be beating the winners.
Then, perhaps after a quiet month when not much has happened, you have a long think about things and say to yourself "right, I am ready".
What you definitely don't do is hit a hot streak on a Friday night, punp up your bankroll nicely, and zoom into a game two levels higher in an attempt to spin it up even further.
My idea here is that, when you do make the carefully considered decision to move up, you will not be moving back down when you hit a bad run (since that, too, is being results-oriented). Your decision was, as far as you are concerned, irrevocable (or at least permanent until the stats show that there is a 95% chance that you are a loser at the new level!)
There was a nice line on EstonB's blog recently. It went roughly along the lines of "I got one step closer to verifying empirically that I'm a losing 10-20 SH player when I 10-table.".
It sounds humorously intended, but it raises a valid serious point. This is the right way to approach online limit, not in a dilettanteish "try this, try that" kind of way, and sticking with the game where you are lucky. You need large samples, you need to test, you need to analyze.
And, yes, I am perfectly aware that I have broken all these rules with my mnoves up to three tables and back again....
++++
And finally, a post on 2+2's Internet gambling forum. I'm sorry, but it just made me smile. But, this is what happens when too many multi-tablers chase too few fishes... What's puzzling is that the poster seems unable to associate cause and effect...
I may just be running bad, but it seems like ever since November, Bodog 25NL and 50NL is full of multitabling weak-tight nut peddlers. As a multitabling weak-tight nut peddler myself, I find this terrible.
Moving Up
Date: 2006-01-12 09:02 pm (UTC)I use a personal information manager, Infoselect8.0 to save articles, posts and stuff for future reference. Here are a couple excerpts from Ray Zee and his friend JA Sucker who learned from him:
J.A.Sucker: "All this talk about moving up and playing higher and higher has reminded me of the best advice that I've ever gotten. It was told to me by a famous poker player who shall remain anonymous, but I'll give him the nickname "Old Man From Montana."
OMFM always says, "Sucker, play bigger when you're winning, and smaller when you're not. Don't commit to any limit or game. When you're winning, play big, but when you lose a bit, go back to what you know. That's how you get the money... and keep it."
That dude is pretty smart. I figured I'd pass it along to everyone."
and further comments by him and Ray in that thread:
JA: " The thing to realize is that your opponents are capable of noticing things, too. At decent limits where people can win and lose thousands, even the livest players pick up on who's been winning and who's been losing. In the casinos and online, people really have a good idea who's getting the money. It's scary, really. The people in the cage, the floormen, the dealers, everyone. When you're winning, people often assume that you're unstoppable, and this allows you to play better than you should. They won't take shots at you in medium sized pots - and better yet, they'll fold their marginal hands. Thus, you win more, and have fewer tough decisions to make. When the ball is rolling, you should play bigger.
Similarly, you are usually playing very well when you are winning; your decisions are better, and this helps. Usually, it's a matter of your perception of your opponents and their perception of you meshes well to make you better than you really should be. Plus, getting lucky helps.
The flip side also occurs. It's possible for live ones to be playing a style that makes you a loser, even though they are losing to others in the game. They also play differently with different days, and are more susceptible to playing differently, since they believe in things like rushes, lucky seats, etc. Maybe the live one in the game is having a fight with his wife, and this could cause him to play differently, and better, against you. Now, you find yourself having people take shots at you in medium sized pots, and make you face tough decisions. The perception of YOU by your opponents is a key thing, and this can effect you in ways that most don't realize. Of course, this doesn't even take into account the other tough players in your game. The best ones know who's on short money, or playing a bit scared, and they will dominate you.
When these things happen, it's often best to drop down, and often to try playing somewhere else for a bit. With strangers, you have a clean slate, and go back to the basics. At the lower limits, decisions become more pot-driven and less opponent-driven, and this can help you get out of the hole. The money that you are playing for is less, and this can always help matters.
The condition of the game often can change very quickly, and when you're playing well, you can pick up on this, realize it, and adjust. When not playing well, this is harder, and often impossible, even for the most tilt-free. The real suckers are the ones who stay there and get their beatings when they shouldn't be. This sucker doesn't do that anymore, and those are some of the reasons why."
And in response to a criticism of that in that thread, Ray told that poster that when a top player says something that doesn't look right, he should dig deeper and try to undertand.
Also Ray said this in another thread: " study and learn and dont move up to stakes that will break you. advance as you know you can win at that new level."
I think that the above advice by top players who play for high stakes (100/200 limit and up and in Ray's case NL and PLO as well) is some of the best I have ever seen on the subject.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Moving Up
Date: 2006-01-13 01:53 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, I have a deep antipathy to people who say this, because it has cost me many valuable years of my life and, as the saying goes, there's no way to get them back.
First it was at school. When I questioned stuff (and staff) and said that I thought it was (and they were) wrong, I was told that teachers had much more experience and that I should dig deeper and try to understand. "What makes you think you know more than the teacher?" was the general line.
Eventually it transpired that the teachers were wrong (okay, not in all cases, but in a fair few of them). I don't think that I have to go through all the cases where the "conventional view" of the 1960s (in, say, politics, economics, or history, or even maths) is not the view today.
Then when I began in this business, I had an unholy admiration of senior executives. Christ, I thought, these guys must be geniuses at business to be paid that much. When I saw them make decisions that struck me as madness, I dug deeper. I tried to understand.
Well, I don't need to post on the number of cases where I was right and the senior executives were wrong. You can all remember disastrous business ventures by the hundred. And these were "top players" who instigated them. Overpaying for companies, moving into the wrong geographies, moving into the wrong sectors. Justifying it all by an insane self-belief and a lot of hokum.
So, the logical problem here is that it is self-reinforcing. We do not hear from the people who tried this Old Man From Montana system and failed, but who would have succeeded if they had tried another way. Zee is talking about what worked for him. But what about the guy toiling in $4-$8 who might have been playing $100-$200, if only he had tried things another way rather than the OMFM/Zee way?
I think that a key point here is the alternative postulated -- "play somewhere else". Now, this, I agree with. And, in the online world, all the things talked about here apply much less. This "play somewhere else" is proposed as the logical equivalent of moving up or down a level. But it isn't; it's as different as different can be.
Similarly, I agree with the line at the end, study and learn and dont move up to stakes that will break you. advance as you know you can win at that new level". This, indeed, is what I was saying. But I think that people can give top players too much credit when they say something. I've seen a large number of top players in all sectors who cannot explain why they succeed and, when they try, often give positively dangerous advice.
PJ
Re: Moving Up
Date: 2006-01-13 08:50 pm (UTC)I think the point of RZ and JA is that many people who have the requisite talent and poker skills to make it as a pro (I know that's not your mission), simply fail to because of not managing their bankroll properly by refusing to move down levels when on a bad run, both so you can figure out if it is just variance, or if there are some leaks that need attention. Also the reason to move up when doing well is simply because if you are in fact good enough to beat that higher level, then you want to increase your earn as soon as can be done so while not playing over your bankroll.
Regarding the point Ray made that you spent most of your reply rebutting, I agree with your points about lots of teachers and lots of bloated overpaid executives. The difference though is that Ray and JA are both top players, and while JA is young, Ray has a proven track record of over 30 years not only be an expert player but also of managing his bankroll correctly. This is not the same with teachers who don't actually produce and run companies, and with executives who brown-nosed their way to the top without actually being outstanding in their fields.
So even if something doesn't "look right", the fact that experts are touting that something makes it more likely to be true, assuming there is not persuasive evidence now or in the future to the contrary.
Also, even though I am a conservative christian, I have long been interested in and studied the philosophy (as opposed to religious practice) and writings of Zen and Taoism. This has given me a strong respect for paradoxical statements, as in being worthy of deeper examination, since the underlying reality of things may be too complex to be stated more clearly with the terms we usually use.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Moving Up
Date: 2006-02-12 02:19 am (UTC)