Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:45 PM
yeau2 yeau2 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 1
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:48 PM
jenson jenson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:07 AM
ajmargarine ajmargarine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pwning Robby Gordon
Posts: 798
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:24 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Bankroll Requirements

this is a good thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3051221
probably should be in the faq (mods?)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:45 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default 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).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:49 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:50 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-28-2005, 01:51 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2005, 02:00 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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].
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2005, 03:40 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.