Bankroll Requirements
 

In the past I've been mostly a sit and go and multi-tabled tournament player online, but I'd like to get into more NL ring games.

The FAQ for this section talks about having 20 times the buy-in for the game to be played. Now my question is this: does this relate to my buy-in, or the max buy in for the game? For instance, for .5/1 if i typically buy in 50 and the max buy in is 100, do I need 20 times the buy in of $1000, or 20 times the buy in for $2000.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

if you think you are a better player than the average guy at your tables then i think you should really buy in for the full amount.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

20-30 buyins of the full buy-in amount, so 2k-3k.

That said, don't buy in for $50. You want to invest $50, go play NL50, and buy in for full. You'll make a similar or more $$$ at NL50 if that's your buy-in. Blinds are cheaper and so you don't have that autoloss every orbit. You get paid in full when you hit your hands, etc etc. You can't use every move in your arsenal when you buy in half-stacked. About 80% of a buy-in is the lowest I could recommend. But, I still think full is the way to go.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

this is a good thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3051221
probably should be in the faq (mods?)

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

[ QUOTE ]
That said, don't buy in for $50. You want to invest $50, go play NL50, and buy in for full. You'll make a similar or more $$$ at NL50 if that's your buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would win a lot more by buying in for $50 at a NL 100 or NL 200 table than I do buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table.

There is a common prejudice against buying in for anything other than the maximum, but that it is unfashionable does not mean it is wrong or unprofitable. Many bad players buy in short, but buying in short does not force you to play badly. Many good players buy in for less than the maximum.

Buying in for at most 50 BB instead of 100 BB is a good idea for many players including those switching to NL cash games from limit or from tournaments (like the OP).

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would win a lot more by buying in for $50 at a NL 100 or NL 200 table than I do buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain please.

[ QUOTE ]
unfashionable does not mean it is wrong or unprofitable

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the point. SS is +EV, just less +EV than full stacks.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would win a lot more by buying in for $50 at a NL 100 or NL 200 table than I do buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain please.

[/ QUOTE ]
My win rate in BB/100 does not drop noticeably when I buy in short.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

[ QUOTE ]
My win rate in BB/100 does not drop noticeably when I buy in short.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure you have the sample size to prove it? 1 or 2 bb/100 over 30,000 hands is very big.

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

Sorry, I didn't really explain my position well. The idea behind it is that buying in for 50BB should be exactly as profitable as buying in full for 100BB at half the stakes, minus maybe .5bb/100 for higher blinds. Thus, in bb/100, your winrate should be half as high at the 100s than the 50s because at the 100s the BB is twice as big, for the same buyin.

If your winrate is the same at both levels, you are running hot as [censored].

Re: Bankroll Requirements
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
unfashionable does not mean it is wrong or unprofitable

[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the point. SS is +EV, just less +EV than full stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you changed your post to add this after my first response. I didn't miss this idea at all, as I have discussed it numerous times in past discussions. I agree with Tommy Angelo and Ulysses/El Diablo that it is often a good idea to buy in short. If the game conditions favor having a deep stack, you can easily add money to a short stack. If you have a deep stack and realize it would be more profitable to have a short stack, you can't take money off the table.

Many people are uncomfortable with this idea. Too bad; it's right.