Bankroll Requirements

[pzhon]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I have enough hands? What's next, will you say that I probably buy in short because I am underbankrolled, or some other speculative nonsense? That's usually how these discussions have gone in the past. To forestall that, I am massively overbankrolled for the highest NL game I play regularly, NL 400. Despite this, when I play NL 100, I usually buy in short, and I have for the past 20k NL 100 hands. I usually didn't buy in short for the first 20k hands. My win rate hasn't changed noticeably between those.

However, even if my win rate drops by 2 BB when I buy in short, it would still mean that buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table is much more profitable than buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table. Winning 8 BB/100 ($16/100) at NL 100 is better than winning 12 BB/100 ($12/100) at NL 50. (Actually, according to PokerTracker, my win rate is higher at NL 100 than NL 50, but I didn't use my observed win rates.) So, your suggestion (which is not supported by my evidence) argues for buying in short at a higher stakes game.

[yeau2]

How do you feel about giving a weighted average to the percent of times I should be re racking to the full amount and the times I stick with a short stack. In other words, the % of times I decide I need a full stack vs the times I don't should be added above the "standard" bankroll I judge from my shortstack times 20 bankroll.

[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I have enough hands? What's next, will you say that I probably buy in short because I am underbankrolled, or some other speculative nonsense? That's usually how these discussions have gone in the past. To forestall that, I am massively overbankrolled for the highest NL game I play regularly, NL 400. Despite this, when I play NL 100, I usually buy in short, and I have for the past 20k NL 100 hands. I usually didn't buy in short for the first 20k hands. My win rate hasn't changed noticeably between those.

However, even if my win rate drops by 2 BB when I buy in short, it would still mean that buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table is much more profitable than buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table. Winning 8 BB/100 ($16/100) at NL 100 is better than winning 12 BB/100 ($12/100) at NL 50. (Actually, according to PokerTracker, my win rate is higher at NL 100 than NL 50, but I didn't use my observed win rates.) So, your suggestion (which is not supported by my evidence) argues for buying in short at a higher stakes game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think buying 25 at 50NL has a higher hourly rate than buyin full at 25NL especially if there is alot of raising pf. I have some success at 400-1000NL games.

I think the general knowledge in this forum is
Buyin short = moron/fish/(stupid guy who push 22 pf)

This is far from truth. I think it requires different skills to be successful.

I hate playing against short buyings btw.

[dbitel]

I agree that there are times where buying in short can be the more +EV, but it should by no means be your default move. I find that at SSNL, most of my money comes from my AA vs KK or QQ and me hitting sets vs an overpair. And in these situations, if my oppponent has 100BB, I usually get all 100. So I want to be fully stacked to take full advantage of these situations, so i think that more often than not, buying in for the full amount is the most +EV