I think this is an important topic and deserves a thorough discussion because it's important to so many of us. Second, I'm not sure what I think about it, so I could be very wrong. Hopefully, further discussion will clarify it for me.

I think it's more important to play well, regardless of the level you play at. I've played at penny stakes through $50, and see a lot of the same play at every level with only slight improvement. The best players win, period. The complete morons lose. You find fewer morons, because morons tend to not have much money to begin with. Iceman, kenny, T-rex, could all win at the Monopoly-money tables. The so-called experts say you get nothing out of these games because the money doesn't matter to your opponents, nor is there anything in it for you. The guys I named might not win because of this. However, if I said I'll give you $10K if you can prove you can win on play money tables, you think they wouldn't bring their A game? You betcha, because now they're playing for something, regardless of what the competition is playing for. When they say, "it's only a quarter, (or dollar, or whatever)," they are saying it doesn't matter to them. You'll always find guys who feel this way, even at the high stakes.

If we were to make the same offer at $10, $25 or $50, they'd probably win at the same rate, so it's not the stakes or the competition that matters, but the ability of the player.

When should you move up? Standard poker answer: it depends. It depends on what you want to accomplish. Money, fame and fortune? Move up as quickly as you can, screw the risk of ruin. Johnny Chan put $300 on his American Express in Vegas and turned it into $30K and never went back to Houston. That's gamblin', baby.

You're more risk averse? Me, too. You may wish to take a slower route, move up as your bankroll allows you to have 20 buyins. Your risk of ruin is much less, and you're gaining experience. Lot of experience, which is going to be the difference down the road. Maybe the difference in winning at whatever stakes you're playing a year from now. The more hands you see, win or lose, the better, or not, depending on your ability to build on your experience. Old saying--do you have 10 years of experience, or 1 year ten times? There's a lot to be said for the long, slow climb. Worked well for me when I began playing fixed limit. I won at every level, slowly building a bankroll. Unfortunately, very slowly, for sure.

In between, there is a fine line to walk, stumble over, tightrope walk, whatever. Not exactly screw the bankroll, but a bit more risky.

I have been playing the $25NL tables, first starting with a $200 bankroll. Way under the suggested, but there aren't many sites that offer lower and playing bonuses takes some of the variance out. I doubled my BR, and started playing at the $50NLs, back and forth, depending on how I was playing and esp how I was feeling that day. If I knew I could play my A game, I'd take a shot. Won a bit, actually better than I did at the $25NL. Hmm, how come I was winning at $50 and not at $25? I was playing much, much tighter. (Scared?)

Then, I hit the right idea. I played the $50 with a $20 buyin. I was comfortable with the amount I could lose, but had a greater chance of doubling it than I could with a $50 buyin. Playing the same hands, the same way on the $25 tables would not make as much money, as the bets and pots were proportionally smaller. Plus, I was playing a lot tighter. (And bonus money comes faster with more pots being raked. 3X faster, on avg.)

**This past weekend, I played the Empire Turbo reload, played the same way I'd been playing the $50NL tables on Full Tilt, and more than doubled my $125 deposit. Hmm, again.**

What I'm saying--and again, I may be completely wrong--is ability is paramount. If you can't consistenly win at lower stakes, moving up means you lose faster. A winner will win more. So, again, it depends. As we used to say often a long time ago on the Internet, YMMV. Your mileage may vary. It will. It depends on your ability to handle variance. If you're risk adverse, take it slower and build your skills, and the bankroll will come along with it. If you're more of a risk taker, then take shots as you feel good about doing it. If you're not doing well, move back down, but, and this is the most important point of all, know WHY you're doing it. Variance? Scared? Nerves?

Winners play the same, regardless of the table stakes. They play tight, aggressive poker. Too often, players get comfortable at a level and start playing too loose, too overconfident. They move up and either play the same way--and take a beating as the competition is somewhat better--or nervously, leading to poor play. They aren't winning, and don't know why they win at the lower levels and lose as they move up. They drop back down and start winning again, rinse and repeat.

Am I close?

CJ

My strategy for now is to play on the FTP $50 NL tables 2 at a time. If I lose $10 I reload to $50. If I lose $20 after that I change tables.

One table I am winning $20 and I lost on the other table so I changed. The new table I just won $18 (68).

I will try this for a few months and see how it goes.

This has become a very nice thread!!! BTP is the best of all around!

Mike, I think the general guideline is to stay at an specific level untill you are crushing it (10ptbb/100) and then move up. I also think that probably isnt the best strategy when it comes to make money and moving up faster. At this point I have enough confidence to know I am a winning player (probably a crushing one) at the NL$50. Since I hate variance I will stay at these tables until I reach my 20K hands with more than 10ptbb/100. Why? Well, I hate when somebody with more experience and definetely more qualified tells me:"I told you". Ice, trodgers and kenny once told me when I asked the question that started this thread that it was the best way to go. Ice , specially, emphasized that it is not a very good idea to move up before you know you are way ahead of the competitors in an specific limit. I understand that now more clearly. If you are one the the two best players at the tables you are playing you should definetely be among the good ones on the next level, even when on average, most of the competition is better than on the previous stakes.

I think one pace at a time is the way to go. If you are crushing the tables you are playing you should fnd no big differences in the nest stakes. That why I think that when somebody says that the next level is too tough they probably werent crushing the previous stakes. I know that is not in all cases but I am sure that it is in most cases.

In your case, Mike, again I have to tell that, IMHO, you should wait until you are beating it consistently (excession said 6-7ptbb/100, and that is solid) you shouldnt move up. You dont have to necesarily wait for 10ptbb/100, but at least a very reasonable sample -20K hands- of winnings could be safe. If you move with a winning rate of 6-7ptbb/100 and you are outclassed at the next level, you could be winning anyway, maybe half your previous winning rate and still you´ll be doing the same money. That s a fair deal and you have the potential to start winning more from that point, not starting losing.

Very nice comments from all of you guys...

Well, i remembered another reason to not move up real quickly. At 1/2 you´ll find kenny, at 2/4 Ice and droqqa, at 3/6 and 5/10 Ice, droqqa and MG......that´s definetely another reason to beware of those tables!!!