NL4 vs NL10

Pysterman

I know I've posted on this sort of topic before, but I was looking for a fresh perspective, preferably from regs who often play and succeed at these levels at the moment.

I've been playing cash for about 6 months, working my way up from NL4 to NL10. I'm not a big multitabler. I sometimes have 2 or 3 tables, but one of those may be a SnG or a Freeroll.

After moving up to NL10 I went on a great run and initally found it easier than NL4. But then my 'luck' seemed to dry up and am I now a loser at that level. I still have an occasional good session, but can't seem to go on a consistent run.

My stats are as follows...

NL4, 13228 hands played, +18 big blinds per 100 hands.

NL8, 5192 hands played, 0 big blinds per 100 hands.

NL10, 9103 hands played, -6 big blinds per 100 hands.

I try to play the same game at all these levels. I don't feel I play scared at NL10 or anything like that. The only difference may be that my standard pre-flop raise at NL10 is smaller than at NL4.

So.. the questions are...

Do NL4 and NL10 play the same?

If I can beat NL4, should I be able to beat NL10?

How should I adapt (or tweak) my NL4 game when playing at NL10.

Are the statistics above actually enough to be able to say that I am beating NL4 and losing at NL10?

Long term, my ambition is to build a bankroll and move up out of microstakes where I can start developing my game and playing 'proper' poker. However, I will only do this by building up, as I know that if I can't beat these levels then it is very naive to assume I will beat the higher levels where they will 'respect my raises'.

Dudeskin8

I personally don't think there's that much difference other than you need to put more effort into table selection at NL10 whereas at NL4 it's pretty hard to not sit on a table with at least 4 bad players.

That volume is pretty decent and for NL4 it looks like you're fine. My advice would be to put much more into NL8 where there are still loads of bad guys who you can get lots of value from, but again table selection starts being slightly more important here as well, get that to 10k hands and see where you stand. 

NL10 down after 9k hands isn't great but it could just be a prolonged bad run which can happen, and the best remedy for bad variance is just more volume to ride it out and see where you are at ~20k hands.

Also another positive thing would be to post big losing hands where you had tough decisions, not bad beats/coolers KK v AA AIPF for example, this could expose any major leaks you currently have.

Pysterman

In Response to Re: NL4 vs NL10:

I personally don't think there's that much difference other than you need to put more effort into table selection at NL10 whereas at NL4 it's pretty hard to not sit on a table with at least 4 bad players. That volume is pretty decent and for NL4 it looks like you're fine. My advice would be to put much more into NL8 where there are still loads of bad guys who you can get lots of value from, but again table selection starts being slightly more important here as well, get that to 10k hands and see where you stand.  NL10 down after 9k hands isn't great but it could just be a prolonged bad run which can happen, and the best remedy for bad variance is just more volume to ride it out and see where you are at ~20k hands. Also another positive thing would be to post big losing hands where you had tough decisions, not bad beats/coolers KK v AA AIPF for example, this could expose any major leaks you currently have.
Posted by Dudeskin8

How would you suggest table selection? I tend to look for tables without more than one or two regs that I know. I also look for players sitting with significantly less than the maximum buy-in (conversely avoiding tables where a lot of the players have accumulated large stacks). I also don't bother if there are few micro-stacks as I figure there's not much value there when I hit my hands.

I went through a phase of posting losing hands a few weeks ago. This helped a bit, with some advice on a few decisions, but didn't seem to reveal any majorly wrong. As you said, I seem to be solid at NL4 and try to play the same at NL10 so I don't think I'm seriously spewy. I do also feel that I've have a run of bad luck, but maybe every losing player feels that way!

I will persevere!

Curt360x27

There's not a lot of difference from nl4 to nl1000 tbh. All that happens is the regs get better and the fishies remain fish whatever limits they play. You will obviously find a higher percentage of regs to fish as you move up but like dudeskin says good table selection is key. gl

Pysterman

That's it. I officially give up. I CANNOT beat NL10.

I try to play it like NL4 and I just get annihilated. I really can't acknowledge those who say it plays the same as NL4.

Since my initial post on this thread a couple of days ago, I've lost two more buy-ins.

Essentially, I wait and wait patiently for an attractive hand, but when I get one and the money goes all in, my opponent always (90% anyway) seems to have the nuts.

e.g. last hand, in a limped pot, with 8-10, board is 10-A-K-10-7, no flush. I'm only losing to AA, KK (unlikely given limped pot), JQ or a bigger 10 (still fairly unlikely). My opponent has shown strength through the streets but I think I'm entitled to call a shove here. But of course, opponent shows A-10. (At NL4, opponent has Ax, A7 or K7 often enough to call here.)

It's the same nearly every time! Yes, I can trundle along winning modest little pots - a quid here, 50p there - but when the big money goes in I seem to lose nearly all the time.

Surely it can't be profitable to only go or call all-in with the nuts.

(Also, when I do hit the nuts, of course, everyone folds!)

I just can't figure out how to crack this level at all!  Aaaargggh!

I am SO frustrated as I feel that I'm a competent (not necessarily good), improving player and enjoy moderate but consistent success in other areas (SnG, NL4) and can't understand why I can't make the transition to NL10 (which apparently plays just like NL4, but with slightly fewer fish).

weedgi

you really dont want to ever limp in this is a leak in your game 
which leads onto calling all ins in limped pots ( which wont ever come up if u dont limp)
in multiway limped pots  u have to be carefull not to call off without nut hands
 the more players in pot higher chance of nuts being out theyre
and also when someone shows strength in multiway pot theyre is less chance they are bluffing than in a heads up pot for example

a lot of the money won at these stakes is made by attacking the limper  and simply value betting the fish

stick at it u will come good, maybe watch some small stakes poker instructional training video 
 
and post your biggest losing hands and let others exasmine and help your play

Dudeskin8

It's sounds cruel mate but losing 2 buy ins doesn't mean jack at cash, it's just a couple of bad beats/outdraws etc and in theory shouldn't really register on your radar, when you're dropping 10+ in a short space of time then you can start worrying. 

Also think you have to post some of these big losing hands, that 8-10 one would be a good start .

68Trebor

 To be honest to say you are a winner at nl4 after 13k hands is impossible to say, as not really a big enough sample to say you have cracked it.
 Likewise to say you are aloser at nl10 after 9k hands is wrong to assume.
 Why not play at nl8, where you are a breakeven player so far.
 At these levels play solid ABC poker, only play premium hands, play in position, bet your made hands, rarely bluff, play the odds, embrace the variance.
 GOOD LUCK.

jugglegeek

First of all break even over 10K hands means nothing. If you've had a run good period and a run bad period then this explains it. Second weather you are a winning cash player has very little to do with the big pots that you play; most of the time they will just be coolers. Just try not to spew on the river and you will be fine.

The main thing that makes a profitable player at cash is adapting to the play at the table. At NL4 just about every table will be full of fish and it's pretty easy to spot when they are not, eg you raise UTG to 12p with 33 and everyone folds - if this happens then you should stand up before the next hand and find a better table. At NL10 there will be fish but just different types of fish. The fish we see at NL4 and that you are good at exploiting will be calling stations who can be beaten just by playing the stength of your hand.

At NL10 a fish might be a player who opens too wide from late possition but will fold to 3-bets too often. Or a player who c-bets out of possition on the flop too much but not often enough on the turn. You don't need to start bringing in complex multi-street bluffs into your game but the occasionaly float against a reg is quite fun to pull off and will work fairly often. Take the following example:

at NL4 you have AdQh and raise in middle possition and get called by the button. Flop is Kd7c2h so you make a c-bet and get called, turn is Js, you check villan checks, river 2c you check villan checks and shows Th8h you win. This is a pretty standard hand at NL4 vs your standard calling station. But imagin this at NL10:

You are on the button with Th8h and there is a raise from a NL4 TAG reg that you recognise in middle possition. You call and everyone else folds. Flop is Kd7c2h he bets and you call. Turn is Js he checks and you bet 3/4 pot and take down the pot.

Think about times when playing NL10 when you can play a little more aggressive to take down a small pot without a hand

littlewin1

A little off the subject i know, but how did you find out your stats?  is this something that sky poker offers or is it somekind of software you have.

i am currenly playing nl4 myself and would say im a while off moving up to nl10. Although i cant offer you much advice on this, i found this thread interesting.

keep on.

Pysterman

In Response to Re: NL4 vs NL10:

A little off the subject i know, but how did you find out your stats?  is this something that sky poker offers or is it somekind of software you have. i am currenly playing nl4 myself and would say im a while off moving up to nl10. Although i cant offer you much advice on this, i found this thread interesting. keep on.
Posted by littlewin1

As far I know there is no way to extract this info from Sky Poker directly. I record all my data manually...

For each session, I monitor the stake level of the tables, exactly how much I bring to each table (plus any top-ups), and how much I leave with. At the end of the session I use Hand History to see exactly how many hands I've played at each level.

I then record all this in an ongoing Excel spreadsheet, from which I can extract any statistics I feel like, such as those above.

I'm a bit of a geek really as I record all sort of stats for my SnG and MTT tournaments too. I'm sure it doesn't make me a better player, but it interesting to be able to look at finishing place distributions and identify the types of games that appear to be profitable (or unprofitable) for me over time.

simonnatur

dude,  google sharkscope  - it could save you a lot of effort recording tourney data

simonnatur

sounds like you enjoy doing it though....  lol

littlewin1

thanks man, ill have a little go myself, im a bit geeky like that myself.lol

ive seen other software to track stats but i was under the impression sky poker didnt allow huds or tracking software to link with site.

does sharkscope work on sky simon?