$50 NL - vs $25 NL

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
An extreme example, if I have $30 in my bankroll, should I only play $1 max buy-in tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the best chance to not go broke, yes. The prohibitive cost of playing poker "correctly" (re: for profit) is unknown to most people.

[Hattifnatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An extreme example, if I have $30 in my bankroll, should I only play $1 max buy-in tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the best chance to not go broke, yes. The prohibitive cost of playing poker "correctly" (re: for profit) is unknown to most people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think with that small of a bankroll (300 or less or so) its more important to play stakes that are not super micro than not going broke because the money is easy (for 99% of the people) to replace.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An extreme example, if I have $30 in my bankroll, should I only play $1 max buy-in tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the best chance to not go broke, yes. The prohibitive cost of playing poker "correctly" (re: for profit) is unknown to most people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think with that small of a bankroll (300 or less or so) its more important to play stakes that are not super micro than not going broke because the money is easy (for 99% of the people) to replace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because at lower stakes the game is too boring? The huge money at $25NL will keep them much more interested? I feel the exact opposite. You need learn that often poker is a very boring game based on patience. You can do that at any limit, so you may as well do it within your (fictional) bankroll where you can "afford" to take a few hits. It is not flashy and it will not really feel flashy to you unless you get on a great run of cards.

If you can easily reload your bankroll and are looking for wild and crazy good poker times, why not play some $100NL or $200NL 6-max tables? If poker is just entertainment, and I'm not saying that that is wrong, then play where you are most entertained. Some people will spend $200+ going out for drinks.

[Hattifnatt]

I see what you mean but I dont agree with you.

If hes plan in life is to become a poker pro I do, but if not, I think he can play a little higher for his bankroll, and if he gets broke, reload the account.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you mean but I dont agree with you.

If hes plan in life is to become a poker pro I do, but if not, I think he can play a little higher for his bankroll, and if he gets broke, reload the account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. As long as he sees that he's playing poker for entertainment and not for profit, this is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Yo, can we just all agree that when we say bankroll requirements, we mean "bankroll" to mean "money that if you lose you must stop playing poker for ever or at least a long time". If you can just rebuy from your bank account then that is NOT your bankroll. If you can just wait for next week's paycheck and rebuy, that is NOT your bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]
Yo, can we just all agree that when we say bankroll requirements, we mean "bankroll" to mean "money that if you lose you must stop playing poker for ever or at least a long time". If you can just rebuy from your bank account then that is NOT your bankroll. If you can just wait for next week's paycheck and rebuy, that is NOT your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can happily live with that definition - and I do plan on being a "poker pro" - or at the least developing my game to the point where I can play on $1000 NL tables for about a 1000 hands a week and make myself a tidy second income.
If I'm being optomistic I want to make it that far in about a year from now...

I am sticking to my $50 NL tables for now - I'd guess my total BR is around $1000 - I just feel more comfortable playing at $50 than at $25.