Where I play at (turning stone in NY) I play NL 1/2 and the min buy in is 50 and max is 100. The players are extremely loose and just bad players.

My question is how big should my BR be before I start playing live full time?

You haven't given us enough information to estimate your winrate, so there's no way we could possibly answer a question about bankroll.

However, the over/under on "number of people who will attempt to answer despite a gaping hole in the data" is 97.5.

I was wondering more of a general buy in rules for live since everyone has 45,000 theories on online BR management.

You're correct: Everyone throws around bankroll advice without knowing what they're talking about.

For a bankroll calculation, even a very vague estimate, to have any validity, it has to be based on a winrate and a standard deviation.

Since you've left it for me to guess, I'll assume your winrate is -0.01 BBL/hour, your SD is 10 BBL/hour, and your bankroll requirement is infinite.

Well, not becoming a 'pro' 1/2 player would be a start.

Here's a better question. Is it 3-4 buyins or 10 buyins enough or closer to 50 or 200?

If I'm a winnar.

a. never said the word pro; so you fail.
b. im looking more towards building up a BR then anything else so why wouldn't 1/2 work?

Thanks for your extremely informative post though.

Well actually being a winning player helps. Other than that a general buy in rule is still a ridiciculoulsy vague question. I guess if we had to state a Generality it would be an absolute min of 20full buy-ins. Absolute min

i preffer +50 BI

OK, I'll just throw out some numbers that may or may not be typical.

Suppose your true winrate is about $15.00 / hour at $1-2, which would make you a decent but not particularly talented NLHE player. I'm still leaving out the SD which is very important to this calculation but you don't even seem to have a clear idea what you're asking so let's just pretend it doesn't matter.

If you're starting with a $100 max buy-in, I would guess that you'd rarely see a downswing of $2k. You might occasionally have a downswing approaching $1000, but that would be fairly uncommon.

But without clear assumptions of winrate and SD, this is just meaningless babbling.

its hard if you've never tracked your stats before. i had a similar situation this summer...i wanted to play poker at least 20hr/week for a source of income...sort of like a summer job of sorts, but i never tracked my stats before...i would play for fun and wasn't a hardcore student of the game yet

thanks to some luck at the racetrack (won 1800 one night on dumb luck) i started with a 1k bankroll. I live in Buffalo so I was able to go play at Casino Niagara where they have the same structure TS has...1/2 100 max.

I think 1k and buying in full is enough if you play a strict TAG style to start off...if you are patient and play just premium hands (AQs+...1010+). There will be enough players to pay you off no matter how nitty you are.

Quit kidding yourself. Don't worry about BR. Get a ****ing job. Play poker for fun.

Start by totaling your expenses (rent, food, car, entertainment, ...) to understand what you must bring in every month.

You said full time moran.

What's a "full buy-in" in live $1-2? Apparently TS limits a buy-in at those blinds to $100. Some California rooms limit it to $40. Gold Strike Tunica has no limit.

Presumably you mean 100 BBL online-syle buy-ins, so that would be 2000 BBL or $4k. But OP is buying in shorter so the number would have to fall somewhere between 20 shorter buy-ins ($2k) and 20 "full" 100 BBL ones ($4k).

Anyway, we agree that we're both just making up numbers. If OP is a world-class NLHE player or plays a very low-SD style, maybe the numbers are lower.

With much bad(loose) players (their will be much 3- 2- 1- outers hehe ) its to marginal IMO.
i would say the absolute minimum is a bit higher. but thats what i suggest

I agree that people will pay you off no matter how tight you play, and that intentionally playing a low-SD game is probably smart if you're worried about BR. (I would add small pairs when you have reason to think you'll get odds for set value, because they are pretty easy to play after the flop in these games.)

You could still run through 10 $100 buy-ins if you're running bad. I'd guess there's maybe a 2-5% probability of going broke starting from $1k, but I'm just making up numbers.

If at all possible, your first order of business should be finding a deeper stacked game. As stated above, it is doubtful you'd need more than $2000 for this game, as it would be very difficult to lose 20 $100 stacks even if you suffer a vicious downswing.

Yes because I have only been playing poker for the past 5-6 months and was going to spend most of my time at the casino instead since online is getting so boring.

Why? We've had this discussion before. Choosing a game based only on stack size without regard to the quality of opponent playing the deeper stacks is just a foolish way to look at NLHE.

Besides, OP is trying to get buy on a short bankroll, which means he may not wish to take advantage of profitable deep-stack opportunities even when they arise.

And thirdly, if the OP lives near TS, the expenses involved in getting to Foxwoods or AC all the time probably more than eat up any change in EV from playing deeper against bad players.

This still depends on OP's winrate. Even if he's technically "winnar" at 50c/hour, he would find it much easier than a $10/hour winner to blow through $2k.

Just to give you an idea of what I was going to do. I was planning on taking 500-1000 with me to the casino and just buy in for 50 and play SSS until I doubled up a couple times. No matter how many hands I fold people where I play ALWAYS give action. I can probably have a 5% VPIP and get paid off fully everytime.

All comments welcome, thanks.

Bobilin, what they're saying is that when you say you plan to play fulltime, build a bankroll, and now plan to "spead most of your time at the casino" after apparently putting a lot of time in online, you are basically saying that you're a pro, even if you don't think of yourself as one.

i luv u

You've been playing 6 months online and don't have enough for a live $100 buyin game?

Also, if you play that game full time you will make much less than you would even at 25 nl online and on top of that you will get good way way slower

I don't get it

Maybe you're right but I want to build up a BR then anything else.

"Why? We've had this discussion before. Choosing a game based only on stack size without regard to the quality of opponent playing the deeper stacks is just a foolish way to look at NLHE."

You apparently have some sort of issue with me. I have no idea why. It seems rather petty and pathetic, though. Let's try this a 2nd time.

Just as you said you don't have enough information to tell him what bankroll to plan for, I have the same lacking in information to say anything BUT that he should find a full stack game. Our OP has given us little information on his skill, playing style, the bankroll he has currently, other possible places to play, expected winrate, etc. I have little to work with. Therefore, the best piece of advice I can give to someone who is assumably a winning player is that he should apply his edge to a game with full buy ins. Thats all. You mention that he might live near TS. He may, he may not, no one knows. Thus, I opened with "if at all possible". We also have no idea what his current roll is. I can only give fairly generic poker advice, which for winning players would be to maximize their edge by playing in a game that ISNT capped at 50xBB.