I asked basically this same question in the Winrates/Bankrolls thread here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17.../index257.html

There is some fairly good discussion there. I can't say how it worked out as I am recently on a large downswing and never got a chance to take a shot.

Just to clarify the situation here:

You have a bankroll larger than $2K, but you are wanting to take $2K out of that amount and attempt to move up to $2/5 with the understanding that you will resume playing $1/2 if you bust the $2K.

Yes

I like 4x100BB, and do everything in your power to table select (play during drunken holiday weekend, etc).

Good luck.

Meh, I say go for it. It's not like $2K is life changing money and if you can get your foot in the door playing $2/5, good for you. It'd be different if you only had $2K and you were being reckless with no plan B. Always have a plan B.

The short answer is:
There is no set amount of money you "need" to play, what you will need is to already be a winning player -othewise you're already a loser and will continue losing at any stake.
________________________________________

The long answer, some explaination:

Serious question, do you just want to spend the $2k?

Or are you already a winning player w/ solid historical data and ready to try the next level up?

In other words, are you just looking for an "excuse" to spend the money, be able to say you "tried it"?

There is no good business reason, and its not strategically correct to move to $2/5 if you're not already beating a lower stakes game; 1) the larger games are not easier 2) you're not all of a sudden going to *become* a winning a player because of "luck" or some other reason.

The single biggest question I'd be asking myself is WHY? Why do you want to play $2/5.
- If you're answer is anything other than "I'm currently beating the lower stakes game I'm playing and ready to try the next level", then obviously you can still do whatever you want, but you'll know you're a loser before you start.


As a practical matter a winning player requires less of a BR than a break even or losing player, and can keep moving up in stakes & have more opportunity to make more $....because they're always adding to their roll. I could have $2k in my pocket and play $2/5 for months and months and make a decent amount, and everytime I get an extra $5k I'll use that $ for soemthign else, but still always have $2k in my pocket....

Regardless of all of the BS thats talked about and written about, kindly keep in mind that *most* poker players are long term losers. There's nothing wrong with this, its simply a true and accurate fact.

best wishes to you sir,....

I beat 1-2, I wouldn't try to move up if I didn't

My question was, if I was going to take an amount of money I'm comfortable losing, 2k, and take a shot at 2-5, what would give me the best chance of breaking through, 6 short stacks, 5 80bb, 4 100bb

I took a shot at 2/5 with 6k total. 2k (4 $500 BI's @ 2/5) and 4K (20 $200 BI's @1/2 if I failed). Made $1500 my first session, been playing since.

I vote 4 $500 BI's

80bbs is an obnoxious amount anyway. I'd say either short stack it for real or keep 4 full bullets.

20.95 BB or 41.90bb per hour over the last 97.6 hours this year so far. Been running good since Nov. With only one, five game loosing streek that was a mixture of brutal beats soon followed by bad play on my part, few loosing sessions scattered in between.

grunching just play 1/2, youre not even rolled for that

don't listen to this. unless you are trying to play professionally, play what you want. if you play $2/$5 and lose, move down. i've moved up and then moved back down. it's not about ego.

as for the original question: buy in for 100 BB.

well i didnt read what the OPs situation was but yea that advise is fine if you can re-load and dont care about losing $2k

4 BI downswings are pretty standard and youll probably not play your best without a sufficient BR

he's taking a shot ... i've done it. you set aside X ... it allows you to play your best for that given night. i'm never going to lose more than X buyins in a night. you set a stop/loss for yourself. so now you're doing it at $2$5 with more money. 4 buyins is sufficient.

yea i mean if he can re-load and the money isnt that important, then its fine

Op,

Take one shot of 5/10 if it doesn't matter.

WTH kind of advice is this?!? If you lose, you are supposed to MOVE UP in order to win your money back OMG duh (unless you are trying to be a professional or something).

As for stack size, just play what you are comfortable with. Buying in short doesn't lessen the variance all that much. (and certainly not enough to overcome your tiny bankroll).

I think one point that should be made is that more emphasis should be made on strengthening one's game than deciding what game to play. Having better bankroll decisions will get you into better EV spots at times when there are decisions to be made, but getting better at the game will universally increase your hourly no matter what you're playing.

Not trying to reduce the entire thread into irrelevance or anything, but I do think people think too much about it.

Just take aggressive shots when the game's good. Remember, the bigger your edge, the more aggressively you can shot take at higher games.

I'm big into shot taking aggressively but I really think a lot of less experienced players are too interested in moving up because it's psychologically satisfying.

You, as a poker player are NOT defined by

a) your bankroll
b) the stakes you play

imo, anyway.

THANK you, TDS. Finally someone who doesn't insta-berate me for buying in half-stacked (which is short but not super short). People here just seem to assume that buying in for a full stack is *inherently* better than buying in for half. But if all the opponents who are better than you are full-stacked, and all the opponents who are worse than you are short-stacked, isn't covering only the people you can beat *optimal*? If old man coffee and crazy drunk guy are sitting at 1/2 with 100, and Phil Ivey is at the table with 300, are you seriously telling me you'd buy in for 300 *in the hopes of raising your EV*?

This isn't my hairbrained opinion, Ed Miller backs it up. He also says that beginners OUGHT to buy in shorter stacked, because they don't have the depth of knowledge to make smart plays deep-stacked. The deeper stacked you are, the more difficult no-limit gets. If you can consistently make better decisions deep-stacked than your opponents, then deep stacking is optimal, assuming you have the bankroll. But if you can't, then playing with a shorter stack is better.

I am most comfortable starting out with a half stack because of my bankroll size. If I double up and I'm playing full, great, I can set-mine more and overlimp speculative hands a bit more in position, and have a deeper stack to get in against donks when I flop the world.

But for my style, I get more action with my best hands when I'm shorter stacked. The deep players play loose calling $15 raises from each other with "implied odds" with hands like KTs, KQ, 44, 55, 66. One raise, five callers, I pop it to 100 with my top 5 hand. Profit. And if one of them woke up with AA or KK, I'm risking less than if I make the exact same move with 100 more behind (at which point I'm pot committed), in which case they'd be folding their worse hands...when they might call if it's only 85 more. What's more, having 100 makes flop decisions much easier. If I have 100 total, I can pop to 50 with AK against a few opponents and if I get called, I can shove with impunity on the flop. But if I pop it to 50 with 150 more behind, I have a really crappy decision to make when I miss the flop.

I think this is very important for people's ego. The truth is people are going to run bad, will exercise poor bankroll management, and will likely need to move down. It is better to check your ego at the door and move down than bust your roll.

Be sure if you are sitting short not to play hands that need high implied odds. Perhaps the easiest way to know it is a fish is to see them straddle with 15 bbs in front, or call raises with sc's.

Yea I play with no ego whatsoever, I actually take pride in it

I just want to take a shot now instead of continuing to grind 1-2 because if I can breakthrough at 2-5 now I'll be able to make more money faster

The reason I don't have a roll for 2-5 is because I'm a jobless full time student and I buy stuff

Taking shots when games are good is a great idea, the big thing is that you need to realize what you are doing and don't play if the games are bad.

However, spend less money and put in more volume.

Go out 1x a week instead of 2 to 3.