Although I know extensive information about math and statistics, I've never had the time to research the theory behind poker. However, I was reading in a thread regarding bankroll for playing poker and it estimated that on average your bankroll should be as big as 300 times the blinds. I don't have this problem when I play online, but I find that brick and mortar card houses tend to limit the amount you can buy in. Here is an example and I'm wondering if it is a rip-off.

The maximum and minimum buy in are $40 the blinds are 2/1, that is far below the bankroll necessary to come out on top. Is it probable, not possible but probable, that even a seasoned player can come out on top with these kind of limits?

assuming your talking about limit holdem generally the rule of thumb is 300 big bets as a bankroll. at the 1/2 level that would be $600. Bankroll and what you can have on the table are very different.

40 is 20 big bets which is more than enough to cover if every street is capped with 4 rounds of betting which is the case with most casinos unless the hand gets heads up.

looks like me you are describing the buy-ins in LA (Calif) casinos.

and NO your bankroll for NoLimit should NOT be 300BB. i think you dont know what Bankroll actually means.
the BANKROLL is all the $ you have available to play poker. for NL the amount needed to play according to a healthy Bankrollmanament is measured in Buy-ins. a buy-in usually 100-200 (300) BB.
the bankroll for LIMIT is measured in BB (big bets). 300 in lower FR should suffices, the higher you go the more you should have

This is about right.

In the 40NL game you are talking about, you need to look at buy-ins which imo should be about 50. A $2k roll should start you in that game if you wanted to play it, but if you are in fact talking about the LA card rooms I'd advise against it. The rake is way too big in that game to make it somthing profitable. I'd stick to online until I had a roll big enough to play the 100NL or even better 200NL.

You need enough to weather the swings. Live is not like online where you can put in volume to lower variance. You can run really bad in the short term (could be month+) and drop 20 buy-ins playing perfect poker. I use $2k as something I'd be doing if I wanted to take a serious shot at 40NL.

I'm personally way nittier than that, I don't like to move up unitl I have at least 100 buy ins for the next level live or online. It makes moving up take much longer, but when I do, I'm much more comfortable and mentally ready to crush souls.

If you don't have enough to get through it, you may risk losing your entire roll quickly. The swings at the 40NL games in LA are really sick b/c people will get it in super light. My suggestion would be to put your entire roll online and build it up to $2k over time and then take a shot live when you are ready.

Bankroll and buy-in are two completely different thing.

You're never putting you're whole bankroll on the table. (Well, you could in Limit because it will never go into play but that would still be pretty sick).

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far:
Sorry, I'm still very much a beginner. I saw Full Tilts video on Bank Roll and I assumed that term meant the buy in amount. So I guess the question is, a game that forces you to buy in at 40 no matter what with blinds of 2/1 is that just a rip-off or can a reasonably skilled player, or even professional still profit from such a game in the long run? The best I've been able to do the few time I've played live at that limit is double up. Usually, with those blinds I last about three hours of play before I go broke--I'm active in hands so that means I win a couple, lose a couple, and then get blinded out.

Now if I move up to 100 or 200 no limit the blind are probably going to be around 3/5. Is that worth it? And if so with how much should I buy in?

Sorry if this is unclear, please tell me what is unclear and I will clarify.

It sounds like you're talking about Commerce ... in which case every game they spread is beatable. The buyin for the 1-2 game is indeed $40, but average chip stack used to be like 200+, so it ends up playing normal after a while (mind you -- i haven't been upstairs at Commerce for a non-tournament in years -- that's just how it used to be when i was first starting). The rake is high (like it is everywhere in CA), but the games are really juicy and are profitable. You want to be moving to 5-10 as quickly as possible as the games are really good and there ends up being a lot of money on the table (5-10 is SOO much softer than 10-20 at commerce).


Again, assuming you're talking about So.Cal, then the Bike has an 80NL game where the blinds are 1-3. This was a pretty good game and is better than 100NL at either Bike or Commerce.

In either case, you want to be getting to the 300-500 game at Bike or the 5-10 game at commerce, so keep playing with an eye towards moving up.

I'd say technically the 40NL game is a "rip off". Very skilled players can turn a profit in any game, but in the long run I think the rake is too high relative the blinds/buy-in for that game. Your winrate will not be significant enough to make it worthwhile to play. I suggest the lowest you should be playing is 100NL (33BBs) but even that's way shorter than standard with a high rake.

If you are looking for a standard NL game (not a shortstack game), look for one with a spread buy in where you can buy in with as close to 100BBs as possible.