Move up? Stay put?

[Big Dave D]

Really the only way to get used to playing big pots is to play them. There is no alternative or easy way around it. As to taking a shot, try to look for players you know or feel you can beat. Most PLO players "vibrate" around a certain game level so if you see a soft touch, sit in. Or datamine.

In general, PLO players are pretty poor for BR advice. Most here are either running/have run so hot they don't even realise it; have continually broken their own advice and gambled it up; are new-ish to the game and really haven't seen the long term yet.

The best ever BR advice came from Mike Caro. Gamble with a small BR; protect a big one. What those numbers mean is completely determined on you.

gl

bdd

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm skipping alot of the replies here and just saying that my general rule of thumb is not to take a shot at any game I don't have 25 buyins for, and to set a 5 buyin stoploss when playing out of my bankroll. This is by no means a kelly-perfect strategy, but I find the biggest difficulty in playing at a new (higher) level is a mental one, and to me it's more important that poker not cause me undue stress then it is that I utterly maximize my expectation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kelly is [censored] and def not optimal. Bankroll requirements are underestimated for sure.

And your bankroll nittiness is probably the greatest part of your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

taking a 5 buy-in shot when you have 25 buy-ins for the bigger game is not particularly nitty, and in fact is pretty close to Kelly-optimal these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more talking about the idea of >20 buyins and less the "taking a shot".

Also, cmyr has quoted number before that are higher than 20 buyins, especially when he was playing PLO50. (He has been know to talk some [censored] though, but I'm sure the right answer is that among all players he is >99% tile of being 'properly' bankrolled.)

If you were rolled for 40-50 buyins, anything over that you could probably light the [censored] money on fire and it won't like to ruin.

[OrrLives]

[ QUOTE ]
Being 'comfortable' with bigger pots is really not a major psychological hurdle.

[/ QUOTE ]

For me it is. I just suggested that one way to get over this aspect of moving up is to short stack for a little while.

I 100% agree that if one wants to move up to the biggest games and become a better player (and make more money), one needs to get comfortable playing 100BB+ stacks. I make more BB/100 full-stacking than by short-stacking.

[Big Dave D]

If you think 40-50 is enough for the bigger games, then I hope variance is your friend.

gl

bdd

[wazz]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think 40-50 is enough for the bigger games, then I hope variance is your friend.

gl

bdd

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a falling out recently. How do I patch things up with the fella? We used to be so close. Consequently I've decided to spend more time with my long-time love prospect Betty Mcpot, she's a hawtie.

gl

[Big Dave D]

Try and get allin on every flop. Variance loves it up them. If this doesn't work, at least it won't work for long [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

dd

[wazz]

On the original subject, I think there are more factors to be taken into account. Some sites play worse and/or bigger (than they should relative to the blind difference) when you move up, so you might in fact need more than you otherwise would. You can approximate to kelly (and for bankroll growth I think you pretty much have to at least try to use it) by mixing in different stakes within the same session but you can do it better by mixing in different buy-in amounts, again depending on who's around, how much you can afford, when you're willing to leave the table (probably as soon as you double up) and how well you're playing. There's no need to stick to a rigid 'always max buy-in' rule at all, as long as you're comfortable adjusting to different stack sizes.

[cmyr]

for the record I'm not in any way abandoning my conservative br-management ways, and I'm still at my most comfortable when I have 100bi for my main game, but there are obviously times when you want to try moving up and it isn't always feasible to grind out one level until you have 100bi for the next. Taking a risky shot when you're under-rolled and will have to move down quickly if you don't run well can be great if it goes well, but it sucks when it goes badly, and I'll always be more comfortable having 100bi for a game I'm happy to be playing and 50 for a higher game I'd like to take shots at.


More practically, I'm currently playing 5/10 and 10/20, but I'd like to start taking shots at (non-cap) 25-50 games, but I'm going to wait until I have at the minimum a 35bi roll for that game, and I'll keep that 5bi stoploss, since if I move up earlier and run badly that would let a subsequent bad run at 10-20 jeopardize my ability to play that game as well, which is something I'm not willing to risk.



I like Dave's Caro quote, and I think there's tons of truth to that. It's important also to recognize that a bankroll's size is dependent on a) what you want to do with it, and b) how long it would take to replace.



One of these days I might sit down and go through all the bankroll related posts I've made and put something together for the faq. I've said numerous times, and I continue to believe, that good bankroll management is the most important part of playing omaha, and maybe poker in general.

[Big Dave D]

Without getting too personal, your figure implies you are under-rolled, by your own standards, for 10-20?

cheers

Dd

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think 40-50 is enough for the bigger games, then I hope variance is your friend.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have evidence for this statement. If so pls show your work.