$50 NL - vs $25 NL - Page 3

kyleb · #21 11-07-2005, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With a bankroll of less than $300, you should be on the $5 and $10 beginners tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

this may well be true - but I don't like doing what I'm supposed to [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Then realize that when you're underbankrolled, you are supposed to go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone has to go broke a few times before they understand the theory of bankroll requirements. Some never understand it.

TheWorstPlayer · #22 11-07-2005, 11:15 AM

Sounds like you're playing poorly on both tables most likely. Post some hands. Of course it could be just variance, but you said to disregard that aspect. So if it's not variance, you're probably playing poorly.

Godfather80 · #23 11-07-2005, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With a bankroll of less than $300, you should be on the $5 and $10 beginners tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

this may well be true - but I don't like doing what I'm supposed to [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Then realize that when you're underbankrolled, you are supposed to go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you have to play NL10 just because you have $300 bankroll, is not that tough to replace the money if he goes broke. But he should not play higher than NL25 (maybe a shots or two at NL50 is ok as well).

[/ QUOTE ]

Then, his bankroll isn't $300, though. If his bankroll is $300, he should play at the proper limit. It's not as though the 10NL games are too tough to beat for 20-30BBs/100. Play there for a few weeks (5000+ hands), if you are running well, then take a shot at $25NL tables. If you get slapped back at $25NL, then move back down and repeat.

Honestly, people seem to think that there's no reason to ever play below "Level X" because at anything below "Level X" you aren't playing poker. Ridiculous. You play the games your bankroll allows you to play and still be a consistent winner.

Hattifnatt · #24 11-07-2005, 11:19 AM

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

These requariments are for pros (and then it has to be even tougher req.) that cannot go broke and cannot replace the money.

And I fully agree with you that NL10 is poker as well and not lottery that some people think...

kyleb · #25 11-07-2005, 11:21 AM

[ 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 · #26 11-07-2005, 11:34 AM

[ 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 · #27 11-07-2005, 11:45 AM

[ 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 · #28 11-07-2005, 11:51 AM

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 · #29 11-07-2005, 12:15 PM

[ 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 · #30 11-07-2005, 12:56 PM

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.