Well at 20/40 you play 5/T NL

if you have a bankroll of 20k thats 500 BB for the limit games which is plenty.

In the other hand 20 100bb buyin for PLO is not a "decent bankroll"

lol @ anyone using "bankroll considerations" to sit out of bigbet games. that doesn't make any sense at all. if you don't want to play big bet, play horse. please dont sit out of plo/nlhe and i won't sit out of o8/stud hi.

also bruiser they have badugi on stars now.

xoxo fubster

Yea obv sitting out for the big bet game is lame, I am just saying, the big bet game requires a bigger bankroll than the limit ones

whats your SN fubster ?

honestly they don't. just because it's big bet doesn't mean it plays bigger or is higher variance. so long as you're well rolled for the games you play in, br issues shouldn't be a factor at all.

i don't play much 8game anymore because i'm being staked and limit confuses and infuriates my backer.

This is an easily answerable empirical question.

Without having looked at the data I would guess PLO has higher bankroll requirements that all of the limit games except possibly 27, and NL has lower bankroll requirements than most of the limit games except razz.

But sitting out for "bankroll reasons" is both nitty and logically suspect, as well as unsporting.

Each form of poker has it's bankroll requirements. 8 game has it's own Bankroll requirements so saying PLO and NL should have caps b/c proportionally it is different than the limit games is silly.

Just play lower stakes 8 game if you aren't comfortable.

why is the max buy in for the 400/800 game $200,000

It's $20k, and the reason is b/c all the games use 100bb PLO and NL as the max buy in. In this case 1/200NL =$20k

It's $200k and it was either a programmer error or they thought it would be cool to have a game that deep.

It's kind of dumb.

hi guys

I've just turned Platinium playing 2/4 this month, any semi-regs in here?

is it just 4/800 that you can buy in that deep?

Also, I think the big bet players (like myself) would quit the game if there wasn't a place to trade edges. I'm a laughably bad stud game player, but I'll give action because I'm getting action in the big bet games. If PLO and NLHE were capped at 50bb or played at smaller limits, I think the games wouldn't run as much.

I think at the lower stakes the big bet / limit ratio is just fine, but at the higher stakes (10/20 and up on stars, 8/16 and up on FTP) the big bet games play far too big because of the higher aggression at these stakes. It's true you can nit it up, but still.

What i do if i play higher than 10/20 is buying short (like $400 in the $20/$40/$1k game) , i hope thats not too frowned upon. I hate sitting out games. The problem with the "just play HORSE" advice is that since FTP has introduced 7-game, the HORSE is all but dead (and one could even argue it has buried the stud games under its body, at least at euro-friendly times).

I don't see any reason to sit out, though. Even if you plan to fold everything but aa/kk/AAKK/AATJ/89TJss it costs you $15 to fold through those two rounds in the 10/20 game. That's less than one round of antes in one of the stud games.

I don't know that buying in short is a huge deal, at least to me. All of the limit guys never seem to reload for the big bet games anyway. Sort of the way it goes. If you're a winner in the limit games, you'll end up playing in the big bet games with a reasonable stack often enough to keep the big bet players in the game.

look im sorry that bigbet is hard for you. i bet limit is hard for some bigbet players. that's what makes mixed games interesting.

i dont know what you are trying to tell me or why you have to do it in a ****ty tone, i just made the point that if you go higher in stakes, the size of the games get unbalanced. big bet is not hard for me at all, i just dont want to risk 1k in one hand.

Come on now I think the PLO plays a bit too big relative to the other games too (I think 1/5 blinds to bets ration would be better than the current 1/4) but this argument is ridiculous. You don't think the NL players are risking quickly losing 1k playing 20/40 stud games?

this is the silliest thing ever. just because "its possible to lost lots in ONE HAND" doesn't mean the game plays bigger, and its CERTAINLY not reason enough to cap games just so limit players dont lose lots of money in one hand or whatever

for the love of god please introduce fast tables, most of the people ive played with seem to be engaged in some sidebet as to who can play the slowest

oh and please put badugi / nl 2-7 in there too!

You guys should play KCL: only fast tables.

Everyone but Jackal. We play too small for him.

I'm becoming a 4/8 reg on pstars...trying to get a grasp of all the games, so I don't play very well but meh, have been a winner. Would love to chat with people on aim bout strategy if interested. Was looking at 10/20 but I didn't know how tough games were. Also, what is considered a great, good, avg, pathetic winrates in 4/8? I can never tell because if ur up 1 buy in in 3 hrs, where does it rank? See u at the tables.

Hmmm, this seems like the thread to ask this in.
I've recently moved to playing the 7-game on FT and the 8-game on Stars, and I'm just single-tabling at the moment. Effectively I'm treating it like a live game, I suppose. The thing I wonder for those who play mixed games online - since it's hard to play more than one table (remembering stud cards, getting confused between games, etc), is sample-size still as important as single-game cash games? I don't see why it wouldn't be, but if it is, surely it takes ages and ages to gauge how well you're actually doing? Or because you're putting all your attention into that one game rather than a lot of multi-tabling, you'll have a bigger edge and need fewer hands for a more accurate win-rate?
Sorry if it's a stupid noob question, I've just always been an MTT player until recently

Do Sjakan or DamonAlbarn post on here, or Bo$$playa425?

Never seen Sjakan or DamonAlborn, but Bo$$Playa posts here.