If you think it's a good strategy, you can do it yourself. If you think it's a poor strategy, you should be fine with it happening.

An increasingly common practice is this:

Buy-in 100 at 1-3 or 1-2. Quit and switch to another casino when that is lost, but come back later. No rebuying.

But if they double up to 200, they move up to 2-5. If they lose the whole thing, they quit and disappear. If they lose approximately half that, then they go back down to 1-3.

If they run it up to 500, then move up to 5-10. If they lose back half, they move back down to 2-5. If they lose it all, they disappear. But I assume they start the whole process by buying in for 100 at 1-2 elsewhere.

In short, they only play shortstack. They are always on tournament mode. I know someone run 100 to 8,000 in a few hours this way.

I may start doing this also. Always shortstacked. Always on tournament mode with the same short term upside as a tourney player. But without the forced blind rises. Rather, blind rises only when winning.

I'm sorry for you, but you've seemed to have missed it.
Do yourself a favor and re read the entire exchange and perhaps you be enlightened.

Betting red in roulette four or five times in a row has the same short term upside.

Lol, I was obviously referring to OP..

But roulette has long term negative EV. Whereas, the guy playing poker can have long term positive EV although not maximized because compromised by being on tourney mode. He would also need to know how to play relatively short stacks.

I like to end a hit & run session with, "Sorry fellas, but my escort just arrived. Gotta Go, Good luck!".

I count my stack and say, "I've got enough for a hooker!"

Bonus points if someone tells you it's too much or too little. Then you reply, "Not for the ones I get!"

It’s possible, but if he’s employing this strategy, it’s unlikely.

It's almost a certainy that he won't be able to maximize EV, but he can easily have positive non-maximized EV. In the meantime, if he's lucky moving up he could have an equivalent of a deep in the money tourney win in the short run.

Let's say he starts at $100 at 1-3. He doubles up to 200 in less than 30 minutes. He then moves up to 2-5 with the 200. He plays tight as a rock then triples up to 600 playing conservatively for 5 hours.

He then pockets 200 (for a 100 profit for the day) then brings 400 to 5-10. Get's lucky and triples up after 3 hours. Now he's got an OK stack. He gets in a good run and gets to 4k. Very possible playing tight aggressive in a good table during weekends.

He can then take 1k of that 4k (pockets 3k for a sure decent profit for the day) and takes a shot at 10-20 (if there's a game available) and triples up. That's 7k for the day. Very possible given above average luck and TAG play.

Meantime, he had positive EV (though non-maximized) if he played a good TAG game at all limits.

I'm going to be doing this during the WSOP. Instead of playing satellites, I'll bring 3 $100 buy ins with me. I'll quit each time I lose a hundred then get listed in another table. Just like satellites but this time, it's cash games.

I'll be in control of the blind raisings. I'll move up only if I have a buy in for the next highest limit.

^ Funny you mention this. I had thought of doing this ocassionally a while back instead of playing the ocassional tournament. I refer to it as a cash game tournament, where blinds only go up when you want them to. Except I was looking at quitting at a predetermined level, say, after doubling up at 5-10. Hadn't thought of just getting up, pocketing an amount, and dropping a level lower again. Good way to try to keep it going.

Certainly possible

Less likely.

Not "very possible".

Again, not "very possible". Extremely unlikely.

Any player who can win at 5-10 or 10-20 is wasting their time at the lower stakes.

You seem to think that you will always win your flips, and that winning at the higher stakes is just as likely as winning at the lower stakes.

Good luck with this plan. Let us know how it turns out.

The sky should be the only limit as far as moving up goes. But there should always be a downside stop loss (and pocketing of profits) every step of the way.

Buy in 100 at 1-2 or 1-3. Then move up to 2-5 (200 buy in) only if there is a triple up (to 300) but not less than a triple up.

Pocket the 100 (for a sure breakeven) then bring the 200 to 2-5. Move up only if there is a triple up (to 600) but only if there's a triple up. Pocket the 100 (for a total of a 100 win then take a shot at 5-10 with 500. If the 200 2-5 buy in is cut in half go back down to 1-2 or 1-3.

If, on the otherhand, the 500 hundred has been tripled up to 1,500 then pocket the 500 and take a shot at the next higher limit with the 1,000.

And so on all the way to 1000-2000 against Galfond, Ivey, and the others. Pocketing profits along the way while moving up and finally quitting if a stop loss is hit along the way.

Yes, it's a tournament but is also a long term EV grind with the latter being compromised by sub-optimal tournament mode and shortstack play, and constant getting up away from the table.

Thanks.

Tripling up at each level is possible. Do you need to get lucky to triple up at 3 consecutive limit move ups? Of course. But you would need a lot of luck at tournaments too, except that there someone else pressures you to move up.

Plus, if a particular table is super good, you have the option of postponing the tournament move ups as long as the players (for example Trooper, PokerKraut, Boski, Bikeking, etc.) that make the game good continue to be playing.

100 to 300...pocket 100...200 to 600...pocket 100...500 to 1500...pocket 500...1000 to 3000... pocket 1000...and so on...That's 1,800 in "pockets" while keeping the sky the limit...

The tripling up each level is a little ambitious, given your short stack usually goes down at a new table from playing hands. But I guess it's necessary at the $100 buy in to pocket the initial $100 and make it a freeroll. I'll try double ups the rest of the levels and re evaluate if I get to say, $1000.

In addition to vastly overestimating how often you will "triple up" in a session, you are also missing that you will also be spending a decent amount of time on waitlists.

If you bust your $100 at 1/2, why would you get up and get back on the list instead of just firing another bullet there?

I also like you mention in your first post that this was "increasingly common", and then revealed it was actually your plan.

I know hit and run players that are actually doing this. Some do it immediately after having doubled up. Some want to triple up or more before moving. All of them don't have a sky's the limit philosophy. They quit doing it at the next limit up.

As to re-buying once busted, that's a personal choice. Ideally, you want to be rebuying in a game where doubling or tripling up is relatively easy. Against total nits who barely see flops, one might as well switch tables.

Tripling up with a minimum buy in is not as difficult as tripling up with the cap buy in. I don't know what the odds are of tripling up at three consecutive limits but tripling up and pocketing three times results in a win of 700. What's the odds of winning 700 (on a 100 buy in) in the Planet Hollywood daily against 20 to 30 players? Plus, you are not in control of your blind increases in those tournaments. Not to mention, you can't pocket winnings mid-tournament. And you don't have the option of postponing the move up if the lower game has many exploitable players.

This is fun to do with a group of friends. Sort of a mini-tournament. We do this sometimes while waiting for a PLO to make. We min buy, then move up when we have the next min buy. Usually, by the time we're called for PLO, at least one of us has been put on raging monkey tilt by the 1-2 nlhe players.

I can attest that this can be done.

I went from playing 1/3 all the way up to 10/20 NL in a day. Though I feel like I can soundly beat 1/3 and most 2/5 games, I don't have that same feeling for 5/10 and feel way outclassed at 10/20. However my advantage as I move up, is my short stack - it is hard to get grossly outplayed and more likely to get a favorable flip if you employ the short stack shove or fold mode.

"You know you can order in, ask the floor for a menu ?"

My guess is that you have been playing at Caesars properties (harrahs, flamingo, ballys, caesars, and ph) where the table is full of degen locals that are there chasing a promotion and not really playing unless they 100% have it.

Great line hahaha! I`ve seen this happen here in Vegas. Two hookers (not jumping to conclusions here; it was super obvious they were) walk into the poker room, and the guy at the table behind me goes to greet them. They walk out together and he leaves his stack at the table. In a little over a half hour he`s back playing again and watching a movie on his iPad.

OP, two things to keep in mind. First, it is all one session. They'll be back to lose their money later, but probably not to you. At the same time, you're going to join lots of tables where other hit and run artists are playing to give their money to you.

It balances out. Making a thread on 2+2 about it shows a tilt leak. Thnking that the money in someone's elses stack is really your money is another leak.

Whats the ultimate strategy for this move?

I think you possibly jumped to conclusions here. Leaves his stack on the table and is gone and back in "a little over a half hour" ?

Not very long time to get to a "hooking venue", do the activity, and return. Possibly, but maybe more likely you judged the two women incorrectly and they all went to a bar for a drink, socially.