So it is usually advocated that how much you are stuck is irrelevant, if you are in a good game you need to stay. Playing for a living and seeing games die down I really see the importance in that. You find a juicy game you need to capitalize. Here's the problem. In limits games this is no problem. For lack of a better term every hand is independent . you can be stuck 50bb, win it all back, and not be at risk for all that is In front of you. Unfortunately in NLHE this is not the case. Lets say you have a 30k bankroll and play 5-10nlhe and buy in for 1500 at a time, and have a rule you only bring 3 buy ins. If you get stuck early and are in for 4500$ and get back to even just as the game gets really good what do you think is the proper play?? At that point you arr playing a 4500 buy in game, which is way to big for your bankroll? I guess you ask yourself if I walked past this game would it be so good I would sit and take a shot.... What are your guys thoughts

im sorry..


what?

1. Someone has a rule to only buy in for max 5% of his bankroll at once (for BRM reasons).
2. He gets into a situation where he suddenly has 15% of his BR at the table.
3. Should the person cashout, even though the game is soft?

In no limit if everyone has you covered your whole stack is at play. This is a huge differnce then in limit. Heres 2 examples.

Your playing 20/40 limit and in the game for multiple 1k buy ins and sitting on 4k. You flop set over set and lose a big pot. That big pot will for argument sake cost you the same amount every time . Doesn't matter if you have 1k in front of you or 4k

Scenario 2 is your playing 5/10nl and in for three 1500 buy ins and opponent has you covered. You get stacked set over set for 4500.

My question is if you guys get out of games when your in for to much and everyone has you covered even if the game is good. In my scenaro in my first post I gave the example of a 30k bankroll for 5/10nl. Being in a game for 4500 is a bit much for that bankroll, even if the game us juicy.

Well, if you start getting too uncomfortable it will start to show up in your play so it can make sense to leave. It all depends on your risk tolerance. I know I've left tables while playing online. However, I sometimes stay, because it can develop your skills for deep stack play which makes you better overall.

Most of the time though, I leave when the stack size starts getting really high.

This is why people tend to underestimate variance in live games. They'll just guestimate 80bb/100 as their deviation and calculate a risk of ruin and come to the conclusion 12 BI is enough when they beat it for 20bb+/100, when in reality you often play with a double or triple stack and the game plays a lot bigger than the equivalent 100bb online game.

There's nothing wrong with staying at the table if your remaining bankroll is enough to play with. Even if you run it up to $100k and lose it all back, your remaining bankroll is still sufficient. Most people would be really bummed out though and so it is up to you whether you want to take a high variance gamble with your stack.

If the stack depth is “too much”, like 15 percent of your entire roll, then yes I would stop. 20 buy ins is pretty risky BRM to start with. If you have 40 or 50 buy-ins, then you can play your game fearlessly, with a stop loss of like 10 buy-ins.

So, the more shallow your bankroll is, the less often it’s utility will be available to you.

Also, I would quit if I was up, and the effective stacks were 15 percent of roll also. Game was juicy, you took a shot, you won, high five.

This is not only to limit the variance of coolers. The game plays quite different 300BB effective (or more sometimes).

How much you are stuck should be irrelevant. Your answer should be the same if you bought in once and tripled up and then the game becomes better.

While there is no right answer , I think this would be the wrong approach for most. While I understand if you buy in for 1500 and run it up to 4500, those winnings are yours and should be treated as such, stacking off 4500 in this scenario I think isn't as bad as being in a game for 4500, getting even and stacking off. I think if you wanted to quantify it, not losing big is more valuable then winning big. Now the counter argument is if you are a good player you will have more big wins then losses. But in that line of thinking ( in no limit) you have to have some sort of stop loss on the amount of your bankroll you have on the table, which brings us back to our original question. In day trading there's a common mantra don't go broke between your big trades, I think stacking off 4500 after you get even could lead you down that road, and if once in a while you wanna try and run up a buy in that's fine also. We certainly don't want to have a martingale approach buy never leaving the table and eventually/inevitably stacking off