Starting out with $100 - advice needed

[Snoh84]

The best way to beat microstakes is bonus whoring/rakeback. You can be a profitable player, but at the stakes you're playing, you'll make just as much through bonuses. If you haven't made a real money deposit on sites, usually you still qualify for bonuses.

Far and away the best advice I can give you to build up your bankroll from $100 is if you ever lose more than $10 in a given session, quit. When you are first starting it is super-easy to lose it all in one day tilting or not caring.

[I-Love-Poker]

OK here is my expierence starting with $100, which I have done multiple times, and have great sucess many ways.

#1, I suggest you DONT play 2nl or 5nl, it is not even poker with 20xBB raise is standard, and every1 is all in. You will not learn anything from it, and it will only worsen your game.

#2) Wanna take a chance? Here is my #1, way of playing. I go to 50nl HU, and just win like no other, b/c most fish are at low stakes HU. I win about $300 and I go 3 table 50NL, and just build up from there. But it is risky starting out.

#3) S&G's, I would start out with $5 6-max S&G's where many fish come to play. Easy wins, and you can make $100 in a day playing that.

#4) Do some MTT. If you do like $1 rebuys or something, and keep it to $4 or $5 max per game, you can make a killing with one Top 3 finish.

[jacaranda]

My personal rule for bankroll management is 2%. I only allow myself to buy in to tournaments for 2% of my bankroll or less.

An easy way to calculate 2% is, move the decimal two places to the left and then double that number. For example. You have $100.00 Move the decimal over 2 spots you get $1. Double that number you get $2. It is safe for you to play a $2 tournament with a $100 bankroll. Once you work your way up to $250, you can play for $5 and so on. If you have a solid game, before you know it you'll be buying into $100 tournaments ;-)

[OMGuraBOT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Lucky, thanks for replying. I would like rakeback but already have a play account on FTP, and a money on UB. That leaves PS for me.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've had money on UB for a couple years and just switched my account to rakeback today. As long as you didn't sign up with an affiliate, raketherake.com should be able to switch your account to rakeback. Other sites may be able to switch your account too, but this is the only one that I came across.

[RapidEvolution]

I think it'll depend heavily on what you think you play best. If you have more experience playing cash games, then play cash. If you have more tourney experience, play SnG's. I'm an advocate of going the cash route because you'll learn to be patient and tighten up. I think that with $100, 5NL is a good place to start and you'll clear your $50 bonus faster than you would at 2NL.

I also think you'll be better off focusing on one game and building your skills at that one game instead of playing 4 or 5 different types of poker. It can be good to take a break every now and then and play some Razz or Omaha, but you really want to focus on being good at one game first. (Of course, this is just my opinion, but the sooner you get better, the sooner you can generate income from poker, assuming this is your goal [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). I started in mid-August with a $50 deposit on stars, playing 5NL and worked my BR up to $650 playing 10NL and 25NL. I then moved it to FullTilt to get rakeback and had a MASSIVE downswing that would've left me broke had I not gotten some bonus monies. I moved back to stars with my $200, lost another $100, and moved back down to 10NL and took a long break to read, work on my game, and figure out if it was just variance, tilt or crappy play (it turns out, it was a bit of all 3. Since then, I've built my BR to 1k and and now beating 50NL at a decent rate. Things I've learned from all this:

1) Don't be afraid to move down if you're not properly rolled for a limit (I like to have at least 15BI's for wherever I am, but will move down immediately if I have less than 10)

2) When you start feeling like this could really be a way to make money, invest in Poker Tracker and PAHUD. Both of these programs are priceless IMO (in reality, they run $80 together), but they're both exceptional tools to have.

3) Post hands in the forums. (Either micro stakes if you play 6max, or full ring if you play full ring). Getting feedback on your play will definitely help you improve, and giving feedback on other hands can help you start thinking about the game in a way that will help your profits. Good luck and I hope to see your posts in the forums soon!

[You're No Daisy]

[ QUOTE ]

2) When you start feeling like this could really be a way to make money, invest in Poker Tracker and PAHUD. Both of these programs are priceless IMO (in reality, they run $80 together), but they're both exceptional tools to have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just get them now. They will pay for themselves shortly. Go to the software forum if you're confused on how to configure PokerTracker or PAHUD (Poker Ace HUD). I would try 6-max NLHE because the games are really soft. Read Tien's post on 6-max fundamentals found HERE to get an idea of how to properly play TAG.

AC

[pzhon]

The first step to building a bankroll is learning to win. If you haven't established a winning track record, you should set a budget and play within it.

You'll hear a lot of people say that you should have 300 big bets for limit, 20 buy-ins for NL, 100 buy-ins for MTTs, etc. However, these assume that you are winning at a solid rate, and 20 buy-ins for NL is much more conservative than 300 BB for limit, which is much more conservative than 100 buy-ins for large MTTs, assuming normal win rates in low stakes games. In the microstakes games, an expert can play safely with far fewer BBs or buy-ins than in a tougher game, so if you learn to play NL decently before you drop to $20, you can safely rebuild in games with a $0.02 big blind.

I recommend playing the lowest stakes NL games, NL $5 with a $0.02 big blind. Initially, buy in for $1 or $2 at a time. You get feedback a bit more rapidly than in other games, and you won't have to unlearn much if you decide to play tournaments later.

[You're No Daisy]

If you just deposited $100 on Poker Stars, start at the .02/.05 No limit hold'em tables buying in for $5. The players are aweful and you can easily work your way up to $200 playing there for a short while. Once you get close to $200 you can take a shot at .05/.10. When you get to $200 you'll have 20 buy-ins for .05/.10. 20 buy-ins is the magic number here for any stakes you're playing at.

Forget about SNGs, MTTs, HORSE, Omaha 8/b, or any other split pot games. I consider myself an excellent Omaha8/b and Stud/hi-lo player but the games are nowhere near as profitable as no limit hold'em...especially Omaha 8/b which is the KING of suckout poker games. If I feel like taking a break from NLHE, I'll play some HORSE or split pot games for fun just to give my mind a break from the monotony of hold'em. I played Omaha 8/b for just over a month starting out with $100 and managed to get it up to $136. When I went back to NLHE I turned $136 into $230 in 3 weeks. I'm comfortably playing .05/.10 and I'm planning on taking a shot at .10/.25 when I get up to $350. When I say take a shot, I don't mean stay there until I lose $100, I mean take a shot or two by doubling up at a table then moving back down to .05/.10 and banking the profit I made at .10/.25. I hope this helps.

AC

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
20 buy-ins is the magic number here for any stakes you're playing at.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

First, a losing player will burn through any amount. A marginal winning needs a much larger bankroll than a solid winner.

Second, in low stakes games, a solid winner does not need anything close to 20 buy-ins, while in higher stakes games, 20 buy-ins is not enough for an expert.

Saying 20 buy-ins is like responding "4:00" any time someone asks what time it is. Maybe it's close, but only accidentally.

[ QUOTE ]
Forget about SNGs, MTTs, HORSE, Omaha 8/b, or any other split pot games. I consider myself an excellent Omaha8/b and Stud/hi-lo player but the games are nowhere near as profitable as no limit hold'em...especially Omaha 8/b which is the KING of suckout poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you reject SNGs. They are simple, they have a relatively low variance, and they are relatively easy to multitable. SNGs are fine for building a bankroll, but their simplicity may stunt your poker development, and higher stakes SNGs are not as profitable as other high poker variants.

If you know how to play, split pot games like O8 and Stud8 offer high win rates relative to their variance, particularly when you play SNGs. Yes, suckouts happen, but very often it is just for half of the pot, and you can make a killing when you are the only one going for low when you are playing several people who think (J8)J or QQ85 are good hands, and who draw to lows that aren't close to the nuts.

These are more complicated than Hold'em, so it is harder to teach a beginner to play them, but they are a safe way for an expert to (re)build a bankroll rapidly.

[You're No Daisy]

[ QUOTE ]
If you know how to play, split pot games like O8 and Stud8 offer high win rates relative to their variance, particularly when you play SNGs. Yes, suckouts happen, but very often it is just for half of the pot, and you can make a killing when you are the only one going for low when you are playing several people who think (J8)J or QQ85 are good hands, and who draw to lows that aren't close to the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's say you're playing limit O/8 and you have a wrap around draw while holding AA23 on this board:

Flop: 4 5 K
Turn: 3
River: 4

...and someone calls your raises on all streets but a moron stays in with two pair and fills up on the river. You split the pot and either lose to the rake or make minimal profit. This occurs especially in Omaha 8/b which is a game of the nuts. Certainly there is the occassional scoop, but if you're here to tell me that split pot games are more profitable than NLHE, I can't buy into that line of thinking. Show me someone's PT Omaha stats that are over 2BB/100 over a sample size of 20,000 - 30,000 hands (besides Jethro [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). I think they'll be few and far between. Even in Stud/8 it's difficult to get to 4BB/100 at the micro limits, though I managed to do it over about 12,000 hands.

But then again...you never said split pot games were more profitable. You said you can make a killing against the donks that think cards like QQ85 or similar holdings give them the opportunity to play more hands. I'm not hating on SNGs. I play them occassionally and enjoy them. I just like cash games better and think they're more profitable. I have been successful in O/8 (pot limit) and Stud/8 SNGs, so I'll give you that. However, I think the split pot cash games at the micro-limits are a waste of time.

AC