[pokernicus]

I've toyed with the short-stack system a few times. It's not hard to go through something like ten (short) buy-ins in a given session. I know since I did that once. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] However, this was at the UB $0.50/$1 game, and I was four tabling.

I did use the short-stack system at Empire while clearing a bonus (this was at the $0.10/$0.25 level), and I think I dipped to being maybe one or two buy-ins behind before surging and making a nice profit (again, I was four tabling). My experience is that the short-stack system seems to work better at $0.10/$0.25 than it does at maybe $.50/1.

Please bear in mind, though, that I don't have nearly enough hands for a statistically meaningful sample size.

Nonetheless, my limited experience suggests that it's safer to have more buy-ins for the short-stack strategy than you might have for a typical NLHE bankroll. (This is primarily because you'll often be getting your entire stack in the middle every time you enter a hand.) But, also keep-in-mind that a typical NLHE buy-in is around 3-5 times what you buy-in for with short-stack play. So, in an absolute sense (i.e., number of dollars), a short-stack bankroll will likely be smaller. In a relative sense (i.e., number of buy-ins), you might need more buy-ins for a short-stack strategy than for a regular (whatever that means!) strategy.