I've always discredited people who enter .02/.05 tables with only $2.50 instead of $5 or .05/.10 with only $3 as generally weak. They're either too cautious and fold easy, or go all-in impatiently after seeing themselves gradually blinded away only to win the blinds. Admittedly, this is probably different outside of the micro-stakes.

I moved from .02/.05 to .05/.10 after there were no favorable tables at that moment at .02/.05. Keeping to my bankroll considerations, I only entered $5 at each table rather than $10. I did well. Won less than usual in terms of blinds, but more overall, about $2 or $3 dollars per hour for the past 3 hours of experience.

Am I wrong in this move, or should I take the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" and do this until my bankroll fits for entering at $10 per table? I notice I try to push others out less because of stake considerations, and I give the higher stakes more credit. Or perhaps I fit the way others give credit, or make more per strong hand.

Looking for vague perspective rather than anything in-depth. Thanks guys.

Typically 3 tables at a time on Bovada, all 9-seat no limit.

Generally people around here (me included) don't like ratholers because of the inherent mathematical advantages they have over everyone else at the table. They're also boring to play against.

That said, at the stakes you're playing there should be so much fish that (if you're at least somewhat decent) you'll end up losing tons and tons of value by not playing fullstacked.

Except I don't have the bankroll currently to play at those stakes. I hit a bad streak (along with foolishly thinking a lucky streak in Omaha meant I was a natural Omaha player), and my stack went from $50 to $20. I played 3 tables at $5 each (most my bankroll). Never hit a pot more than $5, but won about four $3 - $4 pots (some compensated for loses. Now that I'm at $40 for my bankroll, I'm debating what to enter at.

I didn't mean for this to be so complicated a question, I just hate myself for not buying more than a $20 bankroll.

Boring answer, but if you're not properly rolled for the stake you're playing, move down to where you have at least 25ish full buy-ins.

Shortstacking is also very swingy btw (as you might have noticed).
You'll find yourself all-in preflop a lot and endure coinflips frequently.

I'm obviously clueless about your financial status, but $100 isn't a lot of money for most people, so if you feel you can beat NL5 why not just deposit another $100 and start grinding for real?

I didn't before because I went from $20 to $55. Then I lost most of it back to $20. My concern is if I put in to put it at $100, I'll get impatient or risky. I was on a winning streak and thought to myself, "hey, maybe I can make more if I play Omaha." "Maybe I should play more aggressively now that I'm not on a small bankroll."

And then it backfired when I was ahead before.

In short, I think I'm damned either way. I think I'm too short-funded currently and too slowly building, and I'm worried if I'm not short-funded, I'll break my winning habit the first time I try to improve my game.

I approach this as grinding currently. My aim is good cards and winning hands, and slowly turning a profit by about 5-10 blinds per hour. That's 5-10 combining tables, knowing I'll come up ahead or short some times.

There are strategies for shortstacking but dont ask this forum about this

Also this is the 6max forum

You can't have a very good winrate with shortstacking, and the variance is going to be brutal. On the other hand, with decent brm, you should be able to endure it and put in tons of volume.
If you are any good at poker, you WILL make money shortstacking, but not necessarily more than what you'd make playing fullstacked.

If you are a short stacker and not well rolled you will go bust, it's only a matter of time, as you can easily get it in flipping 3 or 4 times in a row and bust your roll.

Not sure how being properly rolled for whatever you choose to do (short stack/full stack) will affect your ability to win money based on that factor alone, but if it's because you are concerned about being to manage a bankroll efficiently then consider that poker may not be the best idea.

I noticed the 6max afterwards.

Thank you Calm and Adz. I think Adz has the best point on the first half, but I made a bankroll mistake, not that I'm not cut out for poker.

I'm finished with this thread.