Basic Stop Loss in NL

I don't believe in stop-loss, but there is a point where it would be wise to re-evaluate the game in which you are sitting.

I normally play limit, and I use 30BB as a guideline for considering stopping. I'll have to make a strong case that the game is still good and I'm still good in order to keep playing.

I recently started playing NL, and I'm trying to figure out a similar guideline. My idea is this: bring 2 full buy-ins to the table, keep topping off until the second buy-in is gone, then re-evaluate when I have less than 3/4 of a full buy-in on the table.

Any help refining this guideline?

I was thinking about this myself. I find the real danger in NL is losing a lot of money in a single hand.

I was thinking about keeping less $ on the table as to create a single hand loss limit.

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about keeping less $ on the table

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that you won't maximize your winnings with a big hand.

I enjoy having at least a full stack behind me, which is why my guideline includes 3/4 of a full stack as part of the requirements, as I don't like playing with less than this.

[Tom1975]

I usually take 3 buy-ins and top off if I get below 1/2 a buy-in. I don't mind playing short stacked, so I'll usually stay until I go broke. I usually stop at 3 because at that point I tend to get frustrated and start making bad plays trying to 'win it all back.'

[mulebennett]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about this myself. I find the real danger in NL is losing a lot of money in a single hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a loser's mentality. You should be concentrating on maximizing winnings and minimizing losses, not just minimizing losses. I used to feel the same way (buying into a NL25 table with $5 or $10), until I knew I could beat the game and now I always buy-in for the full amount.

Online I top of my stack ANY time it is below the max. If the blinds come by and I'm under the max, I rebuy. When I get a set and get the maniac with his big stack to commit to an all in, I want to be able to get as close to doubling up as the rake will allow.

[ QUOTE ]
I usually take 3 buy-ins and top off if I get below 1/2 a buy-in. I don't mind playing short stacked, so I'll usually stay until I go broke. I usually stop at 3 because at that point I tend to get frustrated and start making bad plays trying to 'win it all back.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm considering this further. The 30BB rule is based on 10% of the recommended BR (300BB). So 2 buy-ins would be 10% of the standard recommended BR for NL (20 buy-ins). I suppose by this logic, I should bring 2.75 buy-ins to a single game instead of 2. I generally top off everytime I'm below 3/4 buy-in in live games, as this is fairly convenient for everyone involved. So if I've already lost a full 2 buy-ins (while topping off), then I need to come up with a case for staying once my stack is down to 3/4 buy-in.

If you are planning to go the felt with each buy-in, I think your guideline may be different. Also, if you plan to go to the felt with your last buy-in, your guideline may also be different. I think it's much more profitable to be playing with a full stack than a short stack. Like one poster said, short poker is scared poker. You're better off quitting than playing short.