Hi,

I know this question will have been asked a 100 times but I couldnt find a thread (if there is one just link it please).

Basically I'm a very poor student, no job no money really. I play micro stakes online and feel my game is really improving. I played live for the first time the other day and loved it. The players were shocking and I was thinking how mad profitable playing live regularly could be!

But like I said no money, so what would a good bankroll (i.e. not much risk of going broke, some cushion for swings) for live games be? Online i go by the 20+ buy in rule. I was just wondering if it should be different for live and maybe dont need 20 buy ins? because of the general drop in skill found in live casino games, what would a good number be, for like 50nl/100nl/200nl games be?

Thanks

The same variance applies AFAIK

If you think the games are soft and you've no money then by all means play in them, it's just called shot taking.

If your money situation is such that you've literally none to spare then you shouldn't play poker with any of it. But if that's hyperbole then just play with whatever money you have spare if you feel you're +EV.

Just realise that you might go bust

Even if the variance is the same the bankroll in buyins goes down if the edge is bigger.

Probem with live games is you only get 30 hands an hour, or maybe 35 tops if you have a fast dealer and not much hollywooding. Play 4 tables of Zoom and you can play 1000 hands per hour.

If you're a poor student, without a job, how do you afford BR for 200NL? Just curious, not meaning to sound rude.

my local card rooms lowest game is 100nl. When I go there, I take about £250. my online roll, minimum 30BI for new level before I move up.

Play with 50bb live until you have a sufficient bankroll to play with 100bb. Effectively, this will double your BR. Play tight to lower your variance. In my case, I started playing 200NL live with $300 (50bb stack). My risk of ruin was high but I was lucky enough to run well when I started. If that's your approach, good luck but don't be too disappointed if you lose it all.

...

Wouldnt advise you follow this. Playing with a short stack increases varience somewhat and destroys your edge.

Just go to the casino with 100bb for the minimum stake (Im lucky, my minimum is 25-25p) and have fun.

Or, each week... Instead of buying branded cola, go for the cheap stuff... Or Tesco Value stuff, save up a couple of quid, and go to the casino and play poker... Works for me, as I dont really see casino/live poker all worth playing.

Thanks for the advice guys.

I think im just going to save up as much as possible from the money I do have coming in each week and go to the casino on a friday or saturday night and try and build on it, hopefully run good and build a live roll that way.

I see your point haha I absolutely cant! I was just wondering if a solid bankroll live is different to online and if there were any changes going up stakes. The main game running in my city (dundee UK) is 25p/25p so bankroll isnt actually a massive issue now but I move around a fair bit and wont be in dundee longer than a year so wanted an idea for when my only option will be bigger games.

Play live just for a treat once in a while. Although, you might do better putting the money online and playing 5-25nl

Yeah this was my plan originally but since playing live my first time (went in with 20 pounds and left with 100) I was shocked at how bad the play was and reading online has shown me that this is the norm. So surely it is more profitable to build (or save up) a roll for 100nl/200nl and play these games live (when there the smallest games around) instead of playing similarly skilled players at 10nl and under and potentially better players at 25nl and up? I understand its probably a better idea to multitable 100nl/200nl online if you can beat the games but why not play the same skilled opponents live for ~10x+ the money while your moving up and improving?

50bb=$100 at 200NL, $300 in the pocket in total.

GutshotDan92, chad0x00, you are both incorrect: the shorter you play, the more your variance/std deviation diminishes, albeit not proportionally to the decrease of the stack size. Your win rate also decreases, but not proportionally either, particularly if you are not rat-holing (difficult live). Overall, your risk of ruin decreases a little only but certainly not by half if you play with 50bb instead of 100bb.

True, your are losing some of your edge but as soon as you double up, you are playing with close to a 100bb stack. It is a temporary price to pay to lower your risk of ruin.

Anyway, my purpose is not to argue for/against shot-stacking (and in this term I include mid-stacking with 50bb). I am perfectly aware anyway that it is a lost cause since most posters are extremely biased against short-stacking, short-stacking is boring, has no advantages and is an invention of the devil, etc. To be honest, I prefer a full stack and I find (good) short-stackers annoying because they force me to change my strategy in an unpleasant manner to prevent them from exploiting me too much.

As far as OP is concerned, my opinion is irrelevant. Giving information on how to lower your risk of ruin when you have an insufficient BR was my purpose. I made no judgement for or against short/mid-stacking in my previous post but simply gave information to OP so he could decide what bankroll strategy he wanted to use.

Build from lower stakes.
AFAIK you can afford to have a lot less BI live, because wheras a good player might have a 6bb/100 w/r online, live a good player can have 20bb+/100.

You can probably grind 1/2 live with 2500