I would aim for an ROI in the 3% range here.  Higher is certainly possible in these levels though, but often a player playing $3-30 is not going to hit the max attainable ROI without running well (since as they improve they usually move up to maximize their earning expectation).I'm not sure what the rake is at this level, I would guess around 7-9 cents in rake, or 2-3% rake percentage, but that's just a guess.Playing with 50-75 buyins seems reasonable, I know many say "you need 100" but I haven't found any low stakes (and not many high stakes) players willing to go through a 100 buyin downswing, so the "need x buyins to not go bust" doesn't really apply fully if you're not going to keep playing after losing 50 buyins or so.  Take shots when you have around 40 buyins for the next level, 50 buyins if you aren't fully comfortable, but if you have around 50 buyins for the next level and you beat your current level, take that shot! (in most cases, one except is if you play tons of tables and have a very tiny ROI that makes you money with FPPs + small edge + lots of tables per hour, in that case you don't move up as fast or as aggressively).

Ry, any thoughts on what the increase in opponent skill level is like when moving up from the $15s to the $30s then $60s? I would expect the average opponent to be much more difficult at the $100s but not sure what the level of play is like in the $30s and $60s.And while I have your attention and I'm asking about the tougher opponents found at the $100s - how exactly are they "tougher?" Do they bluff more? Have more control and only show up with good hands? Sorry for the hijack, Gazken ;) GL - best advice I can give you is to use tracking software like HEM (or Poker Copilot for mac) and keep your eye on your All-In Equity graph. Just focus on keeping the EV line moving up and to the right. Don't worry about your profit line. If you're making correct decisions your EV line will continue to shoot upward and eventually the profit will manifest itself. That's how I've been keeping myself motivated lately.

My experience is something like 500 games at 7-50 buyin supers and a few thousand at 200-350.  I don't think I actually ever played a $100 buyin.But based on what others report, what I see in videos, what I see in coaching sessions and what I see when reviewing with another coach/studying, I think two things really change:- There are less fish and more regs, the ratio gets worse.- The "not huge fish but not good" becomes segmented into anything from "bad" ranging to "marginal regular."  In other words, the non regs get better on average.I really don't think it's a big difference if you take the regs out of the equation though, and on a lot of sites if you have winning stats and don't start fights or act like an idiot in the chat, you won't get sat by anybody but breakeven or worse players for the most part.  And if that's the case, you can essentially beat 100s the same way a player playing "anybody" at the 30s would win.I've seen some players with massive ST ROIs quit anything resembling an aggressive player instantly and rematch anything tight.  That might seem nitty (it might even be nitty) but it's worth thinking about why this might work.  The conclusion I draw is that aside from the worst maniacs, I'd rather play a semi thinking tight opponent in a super turbo than a bad lag.  That's obviously really general, but I think the players that fold a lot make the most mistakes usually, at least in a true sense (in a single game a lag can obviously look horrible, even a decent one, if  they get caught in the wrong spots or setups they just look like shit, not to mention one tilt play at the wrong moment... so perception is not reality, and you really need to keep that in mind when "rating" players). So just keep in mind the type of opponents you play, and even beyond that, if you see a leak, before you say "how does this idiot win?" think if that's truly a leak, and how severe of a leak it really is if it is?  Building on the previous statement, I've seen what I consider to be leaks from some tighter ST guys that happen to win big.  On closer examination, their leaks weren't really big leaks, certainly not "spewy" just probably "second best" in a few small to medium difference situations.Not following profit is fine (aside from br following), I'd even toss the all in EV line for the most part too (check in every few hundred games, but if you're watching videos, talking to peers, posting on forums and most importantly playing the games, you're going to improve, and your all in EV graph should not change that over 1-200 games, therefore it is not really useful to even think about but once in awhile).Curious if anybody disagrees with the last sentence.

Thanks for all that, Ry. Definitely helpful. The reason I like to reference my all in EV graph so often is because in STs go by so fast, there's a lot more all-ins, and soon enough you've played 200 games and are down 20 buy-ins and at that breakneck speed it can sometimes be hard to know if you're playing bad or running bad. I know there has been a time where I was complaining about all the bad luck I've run into, only to look up ym EV line and see I've actually been getting ti in behind a lot. THAT was beneficial to me.

Yea it's fine to reference, but there are going to be plenty of times (I think) that a decent winner will have low all in EV over 100-200 game samples.  Running into the wrong part of their range, catching some bad flop texture variance, some bad starting hand variance... that type of stuff can and will happen.

a

How can I see my overall allin EV? It seems that HEM doesn't show it (luck adjusted winnings) for Hypers. Pokertracker maybe?To the poster. I have played about 2500 games at 3.5$ level, sometimes tilting, sometimes just frustrated and playing bad, and my ROI is something like 4,2%, which I think is pretty bad, although villains got much tougher. 100 buyins recommended. You can do it with less, but I've had just recently a sick 20BI downswing (can't win a damn coinflip :D), so I think thats a good number to keep morale high at least :DAnd if you have bigger swings than that (like 30-50BI), obv u gotta work on your game.IMO, higher ROI is possible, I'm no expert but I might say it could go from 7-10% here. Villains are just so bad.

I think the HEM is broken.You got off pretty light if 20 buyins was your largest downer and it only happened once!Even at 4.2%, look at the higher ROIs from former turbo players, they've had much worse swings over 2500 games.I'd always keep an eye on working on your game though, 4.2% is a pretty good start.7-10% maybe, who knows really, it's really difficult to tell sometimes, as bad play and high edge potential can be deceptive.

Interesting. When I started, few of those 10BI downswings I had seemed pretty horrible. The worst thing though is, when I get it in bad and suck out on my villain, and am not always sure if it was a bad play by me, or villain was simply lucky enough to have better hand that time.