Is there something to be said for playing one level at a time?
Isn't it possible that if you play 2/4 or 3/6 then you might lose 50BBs at 3/6, move down to 2/4 and win them back but your overall $ level is still negative?
I have the bankroll to play the equivalent 2.5/5 but not quite 3/6.

So, should you only play 1 level at a time for your bankroll due to the variance of the game?

Depends on how frustrated You would be, if You loose at 3/6. If it would be cause of major frustration, then just stick to the conservative BR management. If you dont mind a little gambling go for it. I have found this one pretty cool http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tools/risk_of_ruin/.

it's more about the mathematicallly correct way of doing it really...
eg if you moved down a level everytime you get to 150BB bankroll then you miss out on the upswings...
someone wrote the other week that everyone goes bust in poker.
I don't agree with that even at 1% ror...any thoughts?

You're much more likely to have a positive impact on your overall hourly by aggressively selecting which games are the best, rather than worrying about at what stake your upswings or downswings happen to be occurring (assuming that you are appropriately rolled for the limits you are playing).

Wrt shot taking: not every shot is gonna stick. It sucks running bad at the highest comparable stakes you play and then having to re-earn at the next level down. However, if you approach it that way rather than thinking about the relative EV of the spot, you're likely to pass on significant equity in the name of over-zealous bankroll management.

This is especially true when there is a significant level gap you are trying to cross. This is obvies true at the higher end of things (e.g. very few of the people that I know that play 150/300+ were fully rolled for any of those games the first time they sat); but it can also be equally true if you're trying to move from say, a 8/16 game to a 20/40 game.

This is also especially true when the single best thing you can do for your overall winrate is move up out of he rake-trap limits as soon as reasonable bankroll management allows. Even in highly raked environments, a 6/12 or 8/16 player tends to lose significantly less of the pot (in terms of bets) to the drop.

ILR owns this.

I'm dubious of the concept of bankroll in live 2/4 and live 3/6 anywhere outside of low raked Vegas game. Even there, 2/4 with a $3 rake + $1 BBJ + $1 tip requires a heck of a game to beat. The effective rake drop moving to 3/6 might more than make enough difference in WR to make your RoR lower in 3/6 even with the same absolute $ in your BR. Certainly ILR's points about game selecting across the two games can trump anything else -- a slightly better 3/6 game would matter more than the 50% higher stakes to BRM.

Not that many 2/4 or 2/6 tables on Stars anymore...not always that easy to choose, you get 1 choice
I usually play 1 table at a time, I don;t like multitabling as I can't get reads.

The advice you've been given itt assumed you were playing live.

no not really. I think you're better off if you're gonna play a "level" play the games of which the chip amount accomodates. For ex play the $1 chip games to start. Then move to the $2 then the $3 then the $5 etc... (1$ chip games are 2/4-4/8 the 2$ are 6/12-8/16 - etc)

My bankroll covers 20/40 down to 8/16. 300 bb on the upper end and 500-1000 on the lower end. That way if I run bad in the bigger game - no biggie - just move down. If you run well - great! move up!

gl.

What's the chip value at the online sites?
Makes sense anyway, so play 1 level at the upper with 300BBs and then some lower ones depending on wehat is available...

What is a realistic RoR, surely if you move down a level when needed it is theoretically very difficult to go broke in limit poker

You should have mentioned this is online because of this:
Hit the FAQ in the micros about BRM for online. Since you can always move down, aggressive BRM can be good assuming you beat the higher levels. There are a lot of 10/20+ pros playing down at 2/4 and 3/6 these games, so winning at all is an accomplishment. You should be able to get just as good reads playing 2-3 tables (even 6m) with a little practice. If you are single tabling because you can't follow the action on 2 tables at once, I'm concerned that you don't have enough experience to beat 3/6.

Good luck.

Been playing a long time but always played tournaments. I've played limit a lot before that but just returning to it. Trust me, it's not to do with following the action. I've played 8 tables before, but I find I can't get proper reads on the players. I can play ABC at 8 tables sure but I find I actually win more concentrating on 1 table. Whether you 1 table 10/20 or 4 table 3/6 doesn't make much difference IMO...maybe worse players at 3/6 but not that much.

The best way to win in the long run is to play the highest game possible, in which the downswings do not matter.

When you go for your first 30 BB cooler in 2 hours (and it will happen), will you get upset over $240? If not, you're probably okay for $4/$8 right there. Will you get upset if you lose $1200 in that time frame? If not, assuming a proper bankroll, you're probably fine for 20/40.

Also, higher stakes != higher profit potential. While 10/20 has a more beatable rake than 4/8, for example, the players at 10/20 are usually better than 4/8, something to keep in mind.

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. You should be able to get every read playing 2-3 tables that you do single tabling -- that's my point about following the action. If you have to one table to get your reads, I'd move down. Also if you haven't played LHE in the last few years, the game is vastly different. At no point did I say you should 8 table.
He's talking online, so none of this really applies.

Plus I like to use the new mobile app cos I can watch TV at the same time
Maybe that's the issue, rather than multi tables. Of course 2 tables would be fine but does it make much difference - I know it's to increase $ amount per hr while BB/100 goes down.

Doesn't seem that different to me.
What do you think has changed?

Yeah, if you stop watching TV, your BB/100 might increase while getting 2x the volume. ez game.
Notice all the mid/high-stakes folks grinding 5/T and below? Notice all the former (current?) SNEs grinding as low as 1/2 and 2/4? A couple people mentioned seeing GiantBuddha playing 2/4 yesterday (15/30+ reg a couple years ago, he's good at poker). I can't play on stars any more, but a lot of people I know who played 5/T as their main game and played some 10/20 are playing much lower. Everyone I know on who is still playing on Stars say that the games are much worse. Heck, they weren't that great just before BF.