Ferguson's Bankroll theory counterintuitive?

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Exsub,

One problem with using that strategy is that it depends on one thing for success, and that is being on a table of aggressive players who will call short stack allins with worse hands, playing as if they were trying to snap off a short stack in a tourney. And then there is the fact that this strategy has been popularized by his discussing it as we are here, and by Ed Miller promoting his short stack strategy in GSIH which isn't quite as tight as Ferguson's and is with playing slightly larger stacks. So good players won't give you any action, and as you attempt to move up the ladder of stakes good players predominate more. Against a very tight super short stacker who has the exact same raising requirements as Ferguson did (QQ+ & AKs/o), then all another player has to do is to fold AK suited or not, and crush his range. Now maybe you might think a larger stack won't fold AK for 20 big blinds to a tight shorty push, but I do and so do others, at least at the higher stakes I play, and even the mid stakes as well I would imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bluff,
Thanks for this reply. After 2000 or so hands of this, I noticed that indeed, semiobservant players avoided me. Once, I sat a table for 300 or so hands and not once did I ever get any call when I pushed.

Clearly, some adjustments are needed.

I have found that even with my limited experience playing NLHE (no pun intended), I seem to have a much better grasp of the game than most of the other players at the lower levels. Most of this knowledge has come from tournaments and occasional shots I have taken at 2/4 NL ring games when I had som extra cash in my bankroll.

Additionally, I'm not exactly starting at $1 either.

As a result of all of the above, I am making the following adjustments.
-I am buying in for 40BB.
-I am playing what I consider a "real game," that is incorporating more hands, more options than just pushing, hand reading, bluffing, slowplaying, and taking advantage of implied odds plays.
-I am making my buyin 2% of my total roll instead of 5%. I am leaving when I'm tired of playing, or I have increased my buyin 4X (for example, buyin with $10, leave at $50).
-I am buying in more than once on a table, should I get stacked, paticularly if I feel I have developed a read on the table, but I am still leaving when I have 10% of my total roll on the table.
-I intend to move up stakes every time I double my total bankroll.

I am interested in your, or any other posters opinion of this approach. Would/do you use a similar strategy? What adjustments, if any, would you make?

[Beavis68]

I have been messing with short stack play, not the bankroll part as my bank would allow my to play 3/6 or 5/10 and I have no desire to play that high right now.

When I first started I used something close to Ed Miller's strategy and pushed a lot.

Now I buy in for 24bbs, but I play a lot of hands, up to 25% if the table is loose passive enough.

I play a small ball game for the most part and make a lot of bluff.

I have almost 16k hands altogether and have a WR of 2.8bb/100, but since i changed strategies it has improved quite a bit.

[aces_acehigh]

Hi i've just got a questions, if I want to play 25NL my BR should be $500 and if I want to play 50NL my BR should be $1000. Right?

[Exsubmariner]

Conventional wisdom around here, at least last time I checked, was 2000 BB (big blind) for NLHE and 500 BB (big bets) for LHE. Of course, if you are not a winning player, your bankroll should be infinate.

[aces_acehigh]

Ok Thanks just making sure my math was right [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you are not a winning player, your bankroll should be infinate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes much more clearer sense if you realize this significant fact... The total sum of money from ALL poker bankrolls is finite.

Didn't stop a billionaire from trying though. At least he had a stop-loss. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]