|
|
#1
11-01-2006, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Size of a buy-in?
I've just started playing NL on PokerStars, and noticed that the default buy-in for .02/.05 and .05/.10 is the same ($6). I've read that the minimum bankroll requirements for NL are 20 buy-ins, but for some reason don't believe that .02/.05 has the same bankroll requirement as .05/.10. Can someone give me a formula for calculating the proper buy-in size? I reallu don't want to play under bankrolled.
|
|
#2
11-01-2006, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
100 big blinds. unless your a short stacker. in which case its anywhere from 20-50bb
|
|
#3
11-02-2006, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
The max buy in for .05/.10 NL is $10, so 20 buy ins would be 200.
|
|
#5
11-02-2006, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
Id use the 20 buy in rule regardless. if your rolled from 200bb buy in at .02/.05 then id move up to 100bb at .05/.1.
|
|
#6
11-02-2006, 02:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
Please clarify something:
(And, yeah, I've re-read the FAQ -- so we're clear on what's a buy-in and what's a bankroll...) Why shortstack? You're not at the table to lose. And nothing sucks worse than hitting the absolute nuts against a NL tourist who thinks he has you beat -- and only having like 17BB for table stakes to push. (It is odd that Party has such a disparity in BB max buy-in between the $2/5NL and $5/10NL table -- since they're both $10. This should free you up to "skip" the $2/5 and go immediately get schooled at $5/10 that much faster...) How about trying $5/10 when you're around $350 and don't be afraid to go back to $2/5 if you run cold -- alternating until you hit $500 and move on... Oh yeah -- the question: Is there a good reason for shortstacking in the ring?
|
|
#7
11-02-2006, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah -- the question: Is there a good reason for shortstacking in the ring? [/ QUOTE ] According to one of my opponents who always buys in for $6 at NL25, it's because he doesn't want to lose more than this on a single hand. He then proceeds to donk it off playing like he's a deep stack without the right implied odds to make the plays he makes. A good disciplined shortstack has an advantage over a deepstack (I think - Sklansky has done the maths somewhere), but very few players play a shortstack well - most of them seem to buy in short for the reason given above, to minimise losses (whilst also minimising gain).
|
|
#8
11-02-2006, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Size of a buy-in?
There are a lot of threads on the Pros and Cons of short stacking.
The jist of it is that when your underrolled but you play better the deeper you are, you can make more money by buying in short to a higher level and doubling up than you can by buying in full at a lower level. like i said, there are a lot of threads about it, at least in SSNL, so check out the search function.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
