6 Handed Bankroll Requirements
Im about to start playing six handed cash games on Pokerstars, limit holdem only.
Question is...
Is 500 big bets big enough for a bankroll since shorthanded play is more swingier?
I will be beginning at $0.50/$1.00 and hoping to start with just a $500 bankroll, no more.
Also is 500BB's big enough as I move up in limits as well?
Question is...
Is 500 big bets big enough for a bankroll since shorthanded play is more swingier?
I will be beginning at $0.50/$1.00 and hoping to start with just a $500 bankroll, no more.
Also is 500BB's big enough as I move up in limits as well?
Comments
Yeah I have been debating wether or not to play 6 handed or full. Like you said I have heard that 6 handed the swings are absolutely HUGE! Which doesnt make short handed play that appealing.
Good luck
I started on Party about a month ago with 75 and played 3/6 and built up a decent bankroll. I have stuck with the 3/6 game and I always take 60-75 to the table. Usually if I burn the 60 on some bad hands I chalk it up to a loss and move on to another table with 60. This seems to be working for me.
Can any one suggest why it would be better to take more to a table?
Just wondering.
Thanks.
Also, as you move up in limits if you are shortstacked you will tend to be picked on more by the more experienced players. I always sit with 50bb to start my session and that is my stop-loss for a given session, with 30bb generally being my stop-loss for a full table (which I don't play online, but live).
At minimum, you should be sitting with at least 150 in your 3 6 game.
I'm confused, you started with 75 big bets ($450) or 75 dollars? If it was the latter, I'd say you go broke at least 9 of 10 times there, and that would be assuming that you actually are a good enough player to show a profit at that limit. I buy in for 50BB at any table I'm playing. Why leave yourself short?
I honestly started with 75 Dollars and got my self up to about 400 in a few weeks.
Typically I take 60 to a table try to get myself to 120 and see what happens.
If I make 200 ... I get up and call it a session.
Like they say, it's all one long session. Why leave when you're crushing the game?
morty
One possibility is that you might realize that your playing abilities often deteriorate when you are either up a lot of money or down a lot of money at a particular table. While the latter is probably more common, many players also play sub-optimal poker when they are fat with a large win.
For such players, blindly following the "one long session" philosophy can be costly.
Learning to play poker well at all times, whether you're up $193, down $2, or down $1,398, is ideal. This will obviously allow you to take maximum advantage of soft games/players.
Acknowledging that you may not have a complete handle on this meta-skill, and setting stop-loss and/or stop-win limits accordingly can be (for some players) one of the best poker decisions you can make.
"It is not enough to be a good player; you must also play well."
ScottyZ
I don't know how you play but I could make adecent guess that you probably have been getting lcuky. Even if you are a good player losing $400 playing 3/6 is very easy. You can keep trying to ride your good luck but you will almost certainly end up losing that $400, if that's not a big deal to you then fine, but if you would like to keep that money move down at least 1/2 or .5/1 and try work on your game by practicing there and doing some reading. Buying in with the minimum is a common thing for some beginners to do but it really is a poor idea.
I can appreciate that you need to be able to take swings, but I also have the mentality that if you can't get it done with 60, you probably can't get it done. I don't play slick hands where I try to buy pots, not because I don't want to, I am just not that good. I have stuck with playing the tops hands and jamming my chips in when I hit, and so far so good.
Thanks for the advice though, maybe I will drop a level and play some .50/1 and see if I can learn some new things. I have tried those smaller limits on other sites (UB
This, I don't agree with. It is extremely easy to lose 10 BB at a soft table, even if you are playing well, and getting the best of it on the whole.
A buy-in of $60 is insufficient to play optimally at a $3-$6 game, especially because it is both a low-limit game and a short-handed game.
In other words, if you "can't get it done" with $60 at a particular $3-$6 table, this is evidence of absolutely nothing.
Of course, making such games far easier to beat.
ScottyZ
I feels that this is true, although my personal experience is that I play better once I have a comfortable buffer of won money. I think the psychology of it is that I'm not playing with my own money, so I'll make better calls, etc. And that which I've won, I've won from my opponents, so I have them on their heels trying to beat me back.
I'm just wondering what Shook's rationale is.
Trust me on this one. It's your money.
Like they say, it's all one long session.
Money won is no different than money not lost, neither of which is different than money which is initially bought-in for. It's all spendable, real money which is yours and noone else's.
If you think that you make "better calls" when you are up a lot, then either
1. you are playing too loosely when you are up a lot
or
2. you are playing too tightly when you are not up a lot
[Note that, for players in category #1, setting a stop-win limit might be worth consideration.]
Unless the players at your table radically change their behavior (or the players change), it would almost never be correct to adjust your (limit) poker play based on how many chips you have, or, in particular, whether you are currently having a winning or losing session.
ScottyZ
Ummm ... WOW ... I guess your Sh*t don't stink, I get what you are saying even though its hard to hear when your are talking from on top of your poker pro pedestal.
My rational about getting it done with 60 is not a law, nor did I imply it was perfect for everyone. I was just sharing that I have infact had some success with this method, and I was just asking for the pro's and con's. I can appreciate the arguement of being able to sustain "Swings" but I don't see the big deal with the mentality that if I double up ... WALK AWAY.
I have had incredible runs where I make 300 or more in a few hours only to continue plaing my game and ending up even or down. Not because I loosen up, but I am in the midst of a bad swing. If I end up busting then what advantage would more chips have, I would have just lost more.
Another point made was gettign value on monster hands. If you win the hand all in ... you DOUBLED UP (read. 100% better than you were before you played the hand)
Maybe my approach is not right for everyone, and my prove to hurt me in the long run, but I was just putting it out there.
Those of you who can accept that there may be more than one school of thought, my come to appreciate what I have said.
I take some more dough next time I play and try what has been suggested, I will let you guys know how it works out.
Thanks guys.
He was pointing out the flaws in your "theory" and you claim him to be arrogant? God forbid we need another flame war, this isn't 2 + 2...
I can appreciate that their are different "schools" of thought. Comparing an elementary school of thought to a post-secondary one is pointless though...
And yet you would sooner buy in for 60 multiple times rather than just buying in for 300 once?
So winning 1BB and doubling up (ie. 100% return) is better than winning a pot of 20BB buying in for 200BB (since this is only a 10% return)? Please...
I think this thread clearly demonstrates that your views of variance (swings) are in fact very short-sighted.
I would say the cons of your approach have already been amply shown. As far as a potential pro, I'd guess that leaving yourself so short on the buyin probably allows you to focus solely on your preflop play, and hence you don't need to bother yourself with the intricacies of good post-flop play. This may save you some bets post-flop.
The criticisms posted aren't meant to be personal, but they are meant to show that your own views are that of someone who is not overly informed...
Yes, there is the Correct School of Thought and the Completely Wrong School of Thought.
One uses mathematics and logic to teach their students. One has no clue and is unwilling to listen to the advice of others.
I guess my small brain cannot grasp the concepts put forward by the great minds on this board.
I will work my hardest to try and adjust to your superior ways.
I now see that there is no room for other views ... they must be discounted, rejected, and tossed aside.
Please disregard any of my posts. I have seen the light.
This forum is about learning. Anyone who comes here simply to post as a locked box and refuses to allow in any of the wisdom that gets passed around this board is missing out on the most valuable part of being here.
The fact of the matter is, ScottyZ almost definitely knows more than you about playing poker. Also, when it comes to poker, there are some things that have no correct answer or method, like how to play a hand in a certain situation. However, some things, like bankroll management, have very established methods.
So when you come on here with a poor method, that is almost definitely a problem with your game, why get upset when someone helps you out by pointing our your error? Theyre not doing it to show superiority, theyre doing it to help you!
And ooooh man, if you think ScottyZ is preaching from a pedestal, I can't wait until BBC_Z finds something to critique you on! Lol.
The point is though, everyone is here to learn, and like in any learning group, some people are more knowledgeable then others. Why get offended when they toss some wisdom your way?
meow
Fair enough man ... I appologize if I was a bit dramatic there. Like I said before I can appreciated what has been posted, infact I have tried what was suggested here over the weekend. Unfortunately there is not significant news yet.
I guess I just don't like when I read posts that come across as slightly arrogant.. Maybe thats just how some people talk.
I wasn't getting pissed because people did not agree, I was bothered that my opinion was SLAMMED.
Its all good.
There won't be any significant news, YET. The whole point is that it's all about the long run, have patience and the results will eventually start to show.