At the hustler casino in California, there used to be an older couple who would sit down, once they doubled up they would table change, if not cash out. This is at 100nl 1/2. I used to go to the casino almost everyday when I noticed this, but it wasn't until another regular pointed it out that they just hit and run, or just are fishing, that I noticed what they were doing.

Is this a good strategy for a beginner to hit and run? For someone trying to build a bankroll again? Is it bad etiquette to sit down, double up in the first few hands, and leave?

The reason I ask is because I think I want to start this hit and run since my bankroll is down. Thanks, I do poker for fun nothing serious.

I doubt anyone is beating a 100 max buy-in 1/2 game with California rake.

I don't think there's anything wrong with winning a big pot and racking up, particularly when you are on a downswing and need to book a win and rebuild your roll. We don't play to make everyone else at the table happy; we play to win in the long run.

If you want to stick to the handbook of "proper poker etiquette," just wait an orbit before leaving and fold every hand until then. You don't even have to look at your cards.

50BB poker is much higher variance than 100BB poker. If you are on a limited roll, but not so limited that you couldn't afford to buy in for $200 if it were allowed, you are much better off staying.

Frankly, though, if you think of this as a strategy question, rather than an etiquette question, you probably have a lot of big leaks and may not be ready for standard 100BB poker. Short stack strategy is very boring, and high variance, but it is simple. Try doing a search on it. If it is ridiculously tighter than you want to play, then you need to play 100BBs deep.

This is a very important question you’re asking but you should know that there’s no such a thing as “bad etiquette” to win a certain amount and leave the table the very next hand. You can do that. On the other hand the “bad” or misunderstood thing is the concept people get confused is what I call management. One is what is normally called money management and one is what I would call “bankroll management”.

Bankroll management is very important. Even if you are a great player, you must have enough of a bankroll units to sustain the inevitable losing streaks. And I have never been opposed to that. Quite the contrary, we got to keep a big enough bankroll to be able to play and sustain losses. The concept that I am always trying to explain to people is the “other” definition of money management.

Money management in most people’s minds, including yours by the way, means quitting simply because of how you are doing that day, or continuing to play simply because you are not there yet. In other words, you are in a game and you have won or lost x number of bets so you quit, only to come back tomorrow or to change tables because you won 100bb. Now you move over to a new table or come back the next day and start over with a random deck like before. Well, that is a silly concept because it is all one game. If you are a serious poker player, you are playing by the week, by the month, not by the day. And if you for instance are in a very good poker game, you don’t quit simply because of how you are doing. You quit because the game has gotten worse, you quit because you are tired. These are all proper reasons but not because I double-up my buy-in or I’m getting bad cards that day, because I’ve lost a certain amount, or because I’ve won a certain amount. This is simply incorrect. This is not my opinion, this is simply incorrect.

If you will play in a game where you have the edge/advantage, the more you play, the more you will eventually win. If you play in a game where you have the disadvantage, the more you play the more you will eventually lose. There’s no way of getting around that. If there was such a thing as getting around having an advantage simply by money management, you could go to the crap table and win by money management. In other words by quitting at the right time or not quitting at the right time but you cannot do that. Money management is a completely spurious idea as far as when you quit or when you don’t quit. The only thing that matters when you are gambling is to gamble when the odds are in your favor, when you are the best player, when you figure to win. And when you are in that situation play as long as you can. When you are not in that situation quit at the first opportunity. That’s really all there is to say. Bankroll management as far as having enough money – that’s different. But money management – no.

When table changing, do you not have to sit down with the same amount you left the previous table with?

It's pretty poor etiquette but in a 1/2 game that presumably has a huge player pool I doubt it'd be the worst thing in the world. That being said,there's likely a decent edge to be found though when the games get slightly deeper and people who are used to playing <50bb effective are all of a sudden playing much deeper so unless you have BR considerations I wouldn't be moving.

Maybe 2 reasons why a table change or hit and run is strategically a good thing from a table/line up that could otherwise be profitable:
1) you’re current table image won’t allow to use the arsenal of tactics that you’d optimally employ.
2) your stack size (or V’s stack sizes) drive slow you far enough outside your comfort zone that you can’t play your game optimally.

If the table is better than you, racking up or working hard to learn are both smart moves.

Finally, for many, many rec players hit and run is fine. If you turn $300 into $600 and feel like that’s a win you want to book, then book it. Rack up, wish everyone good luck and walk away. It’s your session and your money. You have 100% right to manage it in a way that maximizes whatever it is you’re looking to maximize (winnings, gambooly fun, time away from the wife).

There's currently a discussion on this in the No Stress thread.

Hit-and-running in the form of doubling up early and then leaving the game altogether is definitely poor etiquette. It's totally within the rules but you'll have to live with whatever consequences there are.

However, if your room has a easily accepted culture of table changing (which most rooms do, at least in my experience) then you can effectively "go south" by table changing to table that has smaller stacks (or some rooms even force you to go south when table changing). Obviously do it with us much tact as possible.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Short stacking can be an OK way to stay in the game if you are playing on a budget and trying to keep from going broke. It is higher overall variance, and much less profitable than standard or deep stack poker.

I've played short stacked when I was under-budget before. But I wouldn't hit and run. If I had a good night and got up a few hundred, I would just stick around and play some deeper poker. If I busted, I bought back in for $100. Hit & running sounds boring as hell to be honest.

It used to bother me when guys would hit and run, but honestly it doesn't anymore. It also shouldn't matter to you what bothers me. In other words, it doesn't matter what the other players think, as others pointed out, this isn't a popularity contest.

Secondly, and probably more important, the way you're going about this sounds wrong. You seem to have this idea of short stacking that it's as simple as doubling up on the first few hands and racking up. If you have the ability to do that consistently, I'd buy in for the max and follow the same procedure.

Playing short and profitable is more difficult than a cap bi. This is especially true when you aren't used to doing it. Most guys I see that try end up calling small and finding their entire bi.

If you're looking for a quick hit, is go with Starry Nights. That's basically what you're doing with this strat anyway.

In some rooms, like the Commerce, you are limited to buying in at the level of the table cap for that game whether you are a new player or a table-change player.

Example - $100 buy-in game, $2/$3 blinds, we run our $100 up to $300 and table change. At the new table how much is the buy-in? Exactly $100, no more and no less.

In other rooms, like Golden Nugget Las Vegas, $1/$2 blinds, buy in for $100 or more, literally whatever you want. Table change? You gotta move it all to the new game. You can add more but you can't sit down with less.

Hit and run? If you come back within two hours you gotta buy back in for what you left with, whether or not it's the same table you are sitting down at.

Does the Golden Nugget actually enforce this? Yes, from personal experience. For everyone? Can't answer that for sure but I've seen it a lot.

Not a fan of ratholers and hit and run guys, but I understand why people do it.

There's a guy in my poker room that always buys in for the min, tries to run it up and switch tables to go south when he hits. Saw him bust several $50- $100 buy ins, run up a stack to ~700 and switch tables. After he moved I went and told the floor to make sure he put all $700 on the new table. Floor went over and the guy decided to pick up and wait an hour.

Myself, when I'm playing on a short bankroll I use a bracket strategy. It was in some book or article back in day, but basically when you get up a certain amount leave if you're ever below a certain point. Ie if you're up $500 leave if you dip below $300 etc and just keep shifting the go - line if you keep winning.

Just today I got stuck early at 1/2. Into the game for 500. I managed to run my stack up to 800 and left because 1) the game wasn't that good and 2) because there were a couple other big stacks and I didn't feel I would play my best in pots vs them, because such a high % of my stack was my own money

Obv all that goes out the window if you have a proper bankroll, you're playing well, and the game is good. Lots of variables, but I lean towards protecting the BR when you're in the building stage