Building a bankroll

[Smokey98]

What is the best way to build a high bankroll? Say $1000. Should I start out with a small BR like $50 and play the .05/.10 and build that up to a certain level and then go up to .50/1.00 or 1/2? Or should I just throw in $200 and start out in 1/2 or 2/4?

[TimM]

Throw in $200 and start at .50/1.

[Atropos]

Well if you deposit 200$ you should certainly not start in 1/2. You need 300BB at least!! Of course the more you deposit, the faster you can move up, but it seems that you are rather new to poker. That's why you should start with your 50$ at the 0.05/0.10 and get some experience. Work that up to 150$ then go to party and give 0.50/1 a shot if you like. There is some risk but the 0.50/1 players will be weak. Play 0.50/1 until you are at 650, then switch to 1/2 or 25$ Buy-in NL, or 20$ Sit&Go, whatever you like.
This at least is my plan, I started with 60$, built that up to 180$ in the 0.05/0.10 games at stars. Then I got 50$ at party two weaks ago, now I have 320$ at party, 180$ at stars and still on my way up.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Or should I just throw in $200 and start out in 1/2 or 2/4?

[/ QUOTE ]

With $200 I would suggest starting at $.50/1.00 tables at Party Poker and clearing your initial deposit bonus for some extra money. That gives you 200BB which, while still less than the oft-quoted 300BB bankroll rule, is probably sufficient at the very easy microlimit level if you are a winning player. $200 is way too little for $2/4 and you would need to run very well right off the bat for it to be sufficient even at $1/2.

Best of luck.

Colgin

[Smokey98]

When you say, "switch to 1/2 or 25$ Buy-in NL", would that $25 come from my bankroll? Or do I just throw in an additional $25 so my bankroll stays what it is.

[Smokey98]

Also, which of the sites is the best to play at? I've played at stars, party and PP. Which is best?

[Leo Bello]

there is no BEST site. Party has more players, so generally more fish, but also has the worst software in my opinion.
Poker Stars have great software and tough games.
UB I love cause I love the mini-view to multi-tabling.
Paradise Poker is a good site in terms of software and people playing in it. Feel free to choose.

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
Party has more players, so generally more fish, but also has the worst software in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll open an account with them
[ QUOTE ]
Poker Stars have great software and tough games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny that you say that cause I've been playing .50/1 at stars and I've played remarkably good

[matt hooley]

what's the best place to take that start with $50 at the .05/.1 limits?

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny that you say that cause I've been playing .50/1 at stars and I've played remarkably good

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common impression that people get playing tight games like Stars. This is not directed entirely to you, but this is something I have heard many times from people who start at tighter sites like Stars.

In those tight games, you win more pots, your hands hold up more often, people respect your raises, and so on. In these games, it starts to seem like you win the hands you are "supposed" to win. Hell, you can even pull off a bluff every now and then. You get the steady reassurance that you playing well, because pots keep getting pushed to you.

At Party, you will win less hands. There will be more people in the pot, many of whom should not be there, and they will not respect your raises. They will not fold, they will try desperately to draw out on you, they will never fall for a bluff, and they will confuse the hell out of you when they raise with a crappy hand (they actually think it's a good hand). Not only will you win fewer hands, you will lose more hands, which can be frustrating as hell. They seem like hands you were "supposed" to win.

Many people have jumped from Stars to Party, and then they jump right back. They just can't stand losing 5 or 10 hands in a row when they started out with premium hands. They know that, in the end, they "make money from their opponents mistakes", but it's kind of hard to accept when you keep losing. They don't want to wait around for the 1/5 or 1/10 of the time that they sweep a giant pot and make it all back; it seems like it should have happened already, the constant losses are nerve-racking.

In the end, the return to Stars for the reassurance. You win when you are supposed to win. Luck does not become as much of a factor. You get to sweep those tiny pots at a regular interval. It feels good, and it feels like you are getting somewhere. In the end, however, you are losing. You and the rocks are just trading the same money back and forth, coughing up some rake some of the time. Nobody is gambooling it up, letting there ass hang out, having a good time and throwing money around. Nobody wins big, and nobody loses big. Besides being nothing like it, it's like knitting a sweater, nice and safe.

If you can average more money per hour playing against weaker opponents, you are flushing money down the toilet if you don't do it.

Realize that you can not make as much money playing against those tight players. You can make some, but not much.

If you jump to Party, be ready. Expect the losses. You will lose a buyin or two some nights. You will be down 50 or even 100 sometimes. But, you WILL make more money if you are truly a winning player. It might not be as often, but it will definitely be more.

IMHO.

No, I am not a shill for Party. Feel free to replace the word "Party" with the name of any fish-drenched site on the 'net.

[Airpoaneman]

I totally agree with that poster. But as much as it is a fallacy (erroneous belief and misleading notion) to classify every single person on a poker site as the same type of player, the good players adjust their play to better beat the tight or aggressive players that most gamblers at each site are classified as.

As for me I am a strictly Party Poker player.

I have played NL tournaments for the past 4 months and am just starting to play .5/1 and 1/2

The other night I had 2 tables with 25 bucks each
On one I lost $7 in one hand with AA, set on turn.
On the other I doubled my money to 50 bucks with only calling on two hands.( 25bb in 3 minutes is ridiculous)

But some times you just cant win. It is virtually...wait no...technically impossible to get them to fold no matter what you have, until you get pocket aces and raise just like you normally do on any good hand...then everyone seems to fold...wonderful eh?

I recommend not playing tournaments just play limit games.

I do NL tournaments and got 4th place past 7 times...being outdrawn 5 times and being blinded twice. If you aren’t comfortable risking everything on one hand stick to limit.

But like the previous poster stated, be ready for those swings.

I talked to a few guys at the nl 200 tournament tables and they said that you need at least $10,000 to be able to play those regularly because of the swings.

( Make fun of airpoaneman time )
I pitched in a baseball game, first 4 innings were no hitters...7 errors in the 5th...2 outs...bases loaded....two strikes no balls...catched said fast ball..i said what ever....the sob rocked it over the fence.... wonderful

[smokingrobot]

When you say 200 is way to little for 2/4, are you refering to a specific place to play at?

i usually only bring 100 to a 2/4 and sometimes a buck to the 3/6's, this is all on paradise btw.

i've run into those few times where i've played for a few hours either folding or just having my cards flat out beat and im unable to get a good read that im beat. (AQ's constantly losing to AK's with A's up rest of the board is blanks).

some days i just cant get a card... so if i am close to depleting my buy in, i'll just check out, and usually by then i've lost my patience anyhow and so having that larger buy in would only allow me to tilt as time went on.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
When you say 200 is way to little for 2/4, are you refering to a specific place to play at?

i usually only bring 100 to a 2/4 and sometimes a buck to the 3/6's, this is all on paradise btw.

i've run into those few times where i've played for a few hours either folding or just having my cards flat out beat and im unable to get a good read that im beat. (AQ's constantly losing to AK's with A's up rest of the board is blanks).

some days i just cant get a card... so if i am close to depleting my buy in, i'll just check out, and usually by then i've lost my patience anyhow and so having that larger buy in would only allow me to tilt as time went on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the difference between buyin and bankroll. For the buyin (i.e. what you sit down at the table with), 100 is fine for 2/4. However, for your bankroll (the total amount of money you have set aside for poker), you should have 300 big bets for whatever limit you are playing. If you are playing 2/4, you should have a total bankroll of 1200. In any given session at 2/4, you might win or lose 100, but if you only have 200 total, it only takes a little bad luck for you to go broke. And if you're playing 2/4, you WILL be down 200 at some point.

[Malarky]

[ QUOTE ]
. But as much as it is a fallacy (erroneous belief and misleading notion) to classify every single person....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for defining the word fallacy for us. We'd be totally lost otherwise.

YOU ARE SUCH A TOOL

[smokingrobot]

Ok, i see the difference that you're talking about.

yah i've had some unpleasant swings at the 2/4 and 3/6.

i just always thought that 1200 at 2/4 is pretty conservative, but i guess i could imagine 12 straight days of losing 100.

thanks for clearing that up!

[beginner]

How much times the BB (minimum) would you recommend to bring to the table on a given session?

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
How much times the BB (minimum) would you recommend to bring to the table on a given session?

[/ QUOTE ]

The general rule is have buyin 20xBB, but have another 20 or 40x in your pocket ready to go. The key is to make sure you have enough on the table to cover a wild hand, and enough in your pocket to cover a run of bad luck.

It would be unfortunate if you are getting a lot of action on a great hand and can't keep raising because your don't have any more chips on the table.

It would be tragic to be in an excellent game with horrible players, but having to get up and leave because you had a few unlucky hands and are out of cash.

[VeraN]

Are you sure it's just 20xBB? In 1-2 that would be 40, and I would say 40 would be risky if you are playing 1-2. I guess it wouldn't be that bad if you have another 40 right behind you in case you do lose it all. I'd say you would be in a huge comfortable zone at 50xBB, so 100 for 1-2. And to have another 100 in your pocket jus in case. This way, you'll at least be able to play your own game instead of waiting for wired aces and losing blinds.

-http://www.pokernoob.com

[Smokey98]

Are you guys referring to limit games or no limed games?

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure it's just 20xBB? In 1-2 that would be 40, and I would say 40 would be risky if you are playing 1-2. I guess it wouldn't be that bad if you have another 40 right behind you in case you do lose it all. I'd say you would be in a huge comfortable zone at 50xBB, so 100 for 1-2. And to have another 100 in your pocket jus in case. This way, you'll at least be able to play your own game instead of waiting for wired aces and losing blinds.

-http://www.pokernoob.com

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I should have said "at least" 20xBB. You definitely can buy in for more, just don't buy in for less than that. You should have well over 50x ready to go, whether it's on the table or in your pocket, as long as it's not at home on the dresser or in the wife's purse.

Online, of course, there's no such middle ground between whats on the table and your total bankroll. Online I always buy in for 20x (except Party which defaults to 25x), just to keep the numbers easier when tracking of my results at the end of the day.