Ed Miller's small stack strategy= small bankroll?

[MikeR]

You know Ed Miller's strategy for buying in for the minimum and just pushing with superior hands? Does this mean that when I try to determine a bankroll (i.e. 25xBuy in for that NL buy in) I can do it by 25xA min buy in? Just wondering if I'm playing NL with this strategy exclusively if I adjust the bankroll requirements as well.

For example, in a $100 max NL game if my normal bankroll would be $2,500, would the bankroll now be $500 if I played the small stack strategy exclusively and bought into the $100 max game for $20 each time.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
You know Ed Miller's strategy for buying in for the minimum and just pushing with superior hands? Does this mean that when I try to determine a bankroll (i.e. 25xBuy in for that NL buy in) I can do it by 25xA min buy in?

[/ QUOTE ]
There isn't a fixed number fo buy-ins that is an appropriate bankroll for NL play. You should have c*SD^2/WR, where SD is your standard deviation for some period, WR is your win rate for the same period, and c depends on your risk tolerance and ability/willingness to move down when you hit a bad streak. Maost people seem comfortable with c between 2 and 4.

Buying in short tends to decrease your standard deviation. How it affects your win rate depends on how you play normally, how well you play with a short stack, and how well your opponents react to you.

What you said sounds about right. I've been creamed at about 8 minimum buy-ins in a row at my worst. But then you hit a table and double up 3 or 4 times. That's the good stuff.

I've had people avoid me like the plague when I shortstack. Which can be both good and bad. Some people will know what your up to.

Pick a stakes and STICK with it for awhile. Whenever I try to move up to soon it never works out.