Bankroll Requirements

[yeau2]

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.

[jenson]

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.

[ajmargarine]

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.

this is a good thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post3051221
probably should be in the faq (mods?)

[pzhon]

[ 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).

[ 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.

[pzhon]

[ 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.

[ 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.

[teamdonkey]

Phzon, i absolutely disagree in several spots:

-20k hands is about 480k short of what you'd need to tell if there's any real difference in your winrate when buying in short. Actually closer to a million: half buying full, half buying in short. Do the calculations for yourself... i'm not joking. I don't think anyone would argue your buyin amount would make more than 3 or 4 BB/100 difference, and since you can't narrow your winrate down to a range that proves this difference without at least a half a million hands, you'll never be able to make that statement with any sort of credibility.

-Tommy Angelo / ElDiablo are talking about buying in short until you get a feel for the table, then buying in for more. Not buying in short and staying there.

-in small stakes NL, not buying in for the max because the other big stacks are good is close to rediculous. There's only 2 situations where it's a disadvantage:
1. your post flop play is poor. If this is the case, you should be actively working to improve it (which you need larger stacks for) or playing a game where it isn't as important (MTTs, STTs).
2. the big stacks at the table are much better than you. If this is the case, you have no business being at that table. The rake is too hard to beat by itself without having to deal with losing chips over time to better players also. I'd argue strongly that if you're not at least very close to the best player at your table, in almost all cases you're losing money.

Buying in small makes your decisions easier. It certainly allows for plays and situations not available to you when you're deep. But it's the complexity of poker that makes it difficult (and profitable), and the difficult decisions you face when playing deep should be where the majority of your edge against bad players comes from. In the long term there really shouldn't be any arguement as to which is more +EV to a winning player.

[pzhon]

[ 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.