Bankroll building

[meow_meow]

Totally aggree that this is doable.
Only thing is 12k is a bit light for the swings you'll experience at 15-30

[JKetzer]

Yeah, it's mostly just a goal of "have a roll big enough to play at a level where I can have an ok hourly income." More accurately, it's a goal of "learn the game and also make a chunk of money."

[JKetzer]

I haven't really put much thought into NL - I've tried a few SnG's and MTT's just for fun, but that's about it. I played some $25 Party NL today though just to see what it's like, and I did okay.

So it sounds like you would suggest that there's more (easier?) money to be made at the $25 NL than at the full-ring limit games? Right now I'm just playing 1/2 10-max at Party (and, over 8000 hands so far, getting beat up) until I've got ~$1.2k for 2/4. Seems like the NL game would introduce a lot more variance.

[Bluffoon]

I think this is not the proper approach. It is results orientated.

If you have what it takes (a not so common combination of abilities,temperment and maturity), study hard and smart, you will do a lot better than this. If you are lacking in any of these areas you will fail.

Focus on your skills and the money side will take care of itself.

[steaknshake925]

If your goal is to eventually play and beat 15-30, then of course you'll want to play limit so you can work on ur limit game. If your goal is to make 10k, then it's better to play NL because at the lower stakes the money is a LOT easier and better at NL than limit, and there is actually far less variance in NL. Either way, bonus whoring will be a huge part of your plan.

[maldini]

[ QUOTE ]
If your goal is to eventually play and beat 15-30, then of course you'll want to play limit so you can work on ur limit game. If your goal is to make 10k, then it's better to play NL because at the lower stakes the money is a LOT easier and better at NL than limit, and there is actually far less variance in NL. Either way, bonus whoring will be a huge part of your plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is true, why does anyone play limit? seems that most posters that are playing poker for a living play limit. so, they prefer higher variance and less income?

[AncientPC]

There's less variance at limit. My SD/100 at NL is ~45BB.

The money dries up as you move up in NL, there's that border where the LAGs and calling stations disappear and you're stuck trying to win money from tricky players.

That border is much higher on the limit tables.

[mr pink]

4 tabling 5/10 making 1BB/100 is 40/hr - ok hourly income?

[maldini]

seems that rakeback is a bigger issue with limit players too. not sure i understand that though. is that b/c the stakes are much higher relative to the winrate?

also, it seems that limit players play more tables at once. is this true? if so why? i guess you have easier decisions but seems that in limit you'd be making more decision per hand and trying to figure out what all of these bets and raises by other players mean. not a real issue in NL.

[AncientPC]

Average pot sizes are higher in limit than NL, therefore more rake is collected on average as well.