http://www.castrovalva.com/~la/winlose.htm

That's only if you need an upper and lower bound on your winrate - if you don't care that you're winning 1.7 BB/hr vs. 1.5 BB/hr, you can have the same confidence in a lower-bound-only estimate (e.g. 67% confidence that you're winning >= 1.3 BB/hr) with far fewer hands.

In low limit poker what's more important... Pre flop selection or post flop play.

I'm not a golfer, but this seems akin to asking whether driving or putting is more important.

You'll lose your bankroll playing either facet of the game poorly. Position-dependent, preflop hand selection is certainly an easier skill to learn and will likely keep a new player out of major trouble while he's honing his postflop skills. However, the real money (and bankroll growth) is to be made after the flop.

Preflop, you have more opportunities to make mistakes, but the mistakes cost less each. Postflop (assuming you've played preflop correctly), you have fewer opportunities to make mistakes, but they cost a lot each.

It's 100% driving. If you can't drive the ball in play then you'll always be putting for some terrible score anyways. I lost confidence in my driver and went from shooting low 70s/high 60s to having a decent # of rounds in the 80s (over the course of a few years and less and less play).

As for PF vs postflop play... well PF errors compound postflop when you don't play that well postflop. Playing solidly PF will often lead to easy decisions post so for a beginner PF play is important. Once you reach a certain level then postflop play starts to take over as it allows you to play more hands preflop.

And PF play is important, but at a certain level people start to play very similarly PF and separate themselves from the field with expert postflop play (particularly on the big streets).

Driving well will make it so you'll be competitive almost all the time. However, if you want to win, you need a good short game.

Analogy for poker: playing well preflop will probably make you a break even player. Playing well postflop and playing poorly preflop will probably make you a less than break even player. Playing decently preflop and playing well postflop will make you a slight winning player. Playing well preflop and playing well postflop will let you rake it in.

im a long time poker player...newer to hold em....i have been playing 2-4 limit for about 2 years to get a feel for the game and although i make decent plays..alot of times im called out by a guy always getting his flush or straight on the river...i have been told by some players that moving up to slightly higher stakes can eliminate some of the luck from these lower games....my questions are is this a good strategy and which level is best to move to from 2-4?also what is a bankroll recomendation at these levels...i currently buy in for 200 when i play 2-4 limit

This idea of "move up to where they respect your raises" is a very widely-held misconception among inexperienced players. LHE is a high-variance game at all levels... albeit for different reasons. That said, it sounds like you are well bank-rolled for the game (based on the $200 buy-in) and moving up should provide you with a somewhat more beatable game in terms of rake - which can be very prohibitive at small stakes.

+1

This is a good strategy but for the reason that I underlined in graha0011's post. At $2/$4 you're losing 1 BB to rake (more if rake is higher than standard) and at $4/$8 you're losing 0.5 BB to rake per hand. That's the main reason to move up.

The competition will not be much better between $2/$4 and $4/$8, and people say up to $10/$20 but I think $6/$12 is at least slightly harder than $3/$6. People will always be chasing those gutshot straight draws and rivering you - doesn't matter, you'll beat them in the long run.

The bankroll you'll need is defined by your win rate, your variance, and your risk of ruin (ROR). If you play by SSHE guidelines, you should be beating your game for a winrate (WR) of 0.5-2 BB/hr with a standard deviation (SD) of 15 BB/hr. Your ROR is defined by the risk you're willing to take - if your bankroll is small compared to your other income and easily replenishable, you can probably deal with high ROR's (10%+), but if your bankroll is large compared to your other income and/or not easily replenishable, you can probably deal with medium ROR (~5%). If you're a pro and this is your only source of income, you probably want small ROR (<1%).

A convenient estimate for your ROR is (z*SD)^2/(2*WR)^2, where z is the z-factor of a normal distribution. z = 1 for a 16% ROR and z = 2 for a 2% ROR (you can look up different z's for different ROR's).

Ballpark, you're looking at about 50-500 BB, or $300 to $3,000 for $3/$6 basically depending on how good you are (the better you are, the lower your bankroll needs to be) and how aggressive you are about risk (the more safe you want to be, the larger your bankroll needs to be). Keep in mind this is your total bankroll - you shouldn't be sitting down with it all at once. I usually buy in for $100 at $3/$6 but have another $200 on me in case I hit a downswing. The rest I keep in a little box at home.

at which stakes would my bankroll suffice? i could easily add another 100-200 comfortably..would this allow play at a 4-8 level or 5 -10?

wrote this before the other reply was posted....thanks for all the info

bankroll != buyin...i would feel very comfortable buying in for 200 at 4/8

Your bankroll and your buy in are seperate issues. It was recently posted that you should never have less than 12 times the BB. This means you should buy in for somewhat more than this to offset the blinds and a lost pot or two. The 12 big bets means that you will never go to the felt on any one hand, even with maximum action.

Your bankroll needs are a different issue. It sounds like you are playing out of your hip pocket and that is not a good way to play. Set your "Poker Money" aside and play only from that. Start with about 300 times the BB and adjust it accordingly as you get experience and can determine the numbers necessary to use the formulas mentioned by Callyipygian. If you are not math oriented, buy StatKing or something like it and keep accurate records. Then the program will do the math for you.

so by that theory 4-8 a 200 buy in is ok? i have seperate poker money but i never constitued it as a bankroll...just grab 200 and go play...im trying to read some of sklansky and understand his bankroll management as i write this...thanks for all your help

IMO, it is table selection that primarily separates success from failure in all these games, but YMMV. At Commerce, the nits live @ 3/6 because of room separation from 2/4, and how the jackpot there works. As a result, 2/4 = LAP, 3/6 = weak tight, 4/8 anything can happen and usually does. But you've learned enough play to take shots at all levels. If you don't like your table or don't like your results, just get up and go back to that comfy easy chair of 2/4. Keep track of your results at different levels. But the impact of the rake will drop dramatically as you go up in levels. Go for it.

BTW, I have a winning record long term (3 years) at all levels, 2/4 - 8/16. This year, a couple of bad 3/6 sessions in LV have me underwater there. (Yes, officer, alcohol was involved in that accident!)

Your bankroll is all the money that you are willing to spend on poker. It should be considered separate from your savings and emergency money and retirement accounts, but if it's in the same bank account, that's fine so long as you keep good records and don't end up gambling with your rent money.

You can have a fixed bankroll, one that is what it is, and if you lose it all you're never playing poker again. You can also have a replenishable bankroll, one that you can feed into from extra money you make elsewhere. The math is only slightly different in terms of calculating what you can afford to play - basically you treat the replenishment as win rate and do a fixed bankroll calculation with a boosted win rate.

Buy-ins are very different, that's the amount of cash you have on hand for a particular session. I even go further to separate an initial buy-in - when I sit down at a $4/$8 table, I usually buy in for $100, even though I might have $300 on me. If I drop below $50, I'll rebuy for another $100, and if I drop below $50 again, I'll buy in for another $100. (Usually if I lose 3x my initial buy-in = 1x my daily buy-in I'm pretty mad so I'll quit for the day.)

I'm multi playing 2 4 on Pstars and doing ok with it...but would it be more profitable for me to play on Full Tilt with their 27% rakeback? Also how many tables can u play on FT? And what are the FT points in real money? And above all how stiff is the competition at FT compared to Pstars? Thx I'm looking for any feedback on this issue

^ I actually haven't played too much on FTP lately but I'll still offer a couple cents.

Yeah, it's probably good to have both sites up if you want to table select better --> take the better games, ship profits.

I've heard people estimate that the FT pts + "ironman" add about 3-4% in rakeback.

Again, I haven't been on there for awhile but I recall FTP to be pretty much like Stars for 2/4. I also recall some familar screen names common to both sites.

My two cents... now please stop owning me at 2/4.

thx for the input. I'll take another look at FT, im concerned about the volume of players and the ability to multi table. And i heard the rake is 50c extra if the pot falls between 30 to 40 bux.

that rake thing makes sense, I'm on party occasionally and they do that as well

but if the tables are good enough at FTP then just play a few good ones from there and your winrate should make up for the 50 cents unless it's totally nitted up now

just took a look now out of curiosity and it's definitely not peak but the FR 2/4's there don't look particularly great, 6m a little better. 3/6 seems a touch better than 2/4 for FR

Do you play FR/6Max only or both? If you don't play both, are you willing to mix in some 1/2 or 3/6 on occasion?

Hello tried to find something but not alot of limit threads.

Ive played nl / omaha heads up 6 max but nothing more enjoyable than 6 max limit. So im depositing in one of the two sites.

Now i just need to know whats better with my situation pokerstars with a silverstar (im going to be playing a decent amount but this is just recreational, not sure how high of a lvl i will get to) and better table selection or fulltilt with rackback. Also ive used up both bonuses. Ive heard rakeback is very important for a limit player. So just need a little input.

Game selection is better at PS, but FT rakeback > PS FPP's (at the silver level).

Personally, I think it's pretty close, but give the edge to FT.

I'm thinking about depositing into a site as well to try and increase the number of hands I play.

I know a while back there were promotions for referrals, and since you guys have been helpful to me, I just wanted to know if there's anyone here who wants me to sign up with them as a referral.

I'm still doing research on what depositing options are available for me (US resident, CA specifically). It still seems like the best method is to give someone cash and have them transfer money?