What level should I play?

[metsfan88]

i agree, having a $500 bankroll wouldnt give you the skills to beat 25NL but it allows you to have some breathing room for you to drop down if you start to lose money. But honestly do you think having $100 bankroll is good enough to be playing 25NL? I think at minimum to get past the swings you would need at least 10-15 buy-ins.

[Nsight7]

Whatever you deposit, play just .01/.02 and give it your all for like 10K hands or so. If you do well, move up. If you aren't doing so well, stay at that level for awhile. Don't play underolled no matter what if you are indeed a winning player.

[Doc T River]

Let's approach the question in a slightly different way. If someone is going to start by playing .01/.02 NL, what is the maximum a player should deposit? Is there a maximum?

I would think that someone could have too big a bankroll for the level they are playing. It might be a temptation to not treat the money as seriously as they would if they started with a smaller, more appropriate bankroll.

[rascony]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be a temptation to not treat the money as seriously as they would if they started with a smaller, more appropriate bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is your attitude, then you are approaching it with the wrong mindset. You should be wanting to improve your game, and that is why everyone seems to be of the consensus stay at lower limits (.01/.02 or .02/.05) regardless of your bankroll.

One benefit of loading larger amounts might be to get a larger bonus if applicable.

[RyverRat]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's approach the question in a slightly different way. If someone is going to start by playing .01/.02 NL, what is the maximum a player should deposit? Is there a maximum?

I would think that someone could have too big a bankroll for the level they are playing. It might be a temptation to not treat the money as seriously as they would if they started with a smaller, more appropriate bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

the maximum is irrelevant until you know you can beat the level you are playing at. I understnad what you are trying to get at, that you will have less respect for your buyins if they are a small proportion of your bankroll, but that has got to be the wrong way to approach it. That is a lack

play to improve your game. play to learn. this will increase your win rate and allow you to comfortably move up to the higher levels. dont watch your cash level. watch your winrate per 10,000 hands. analyse your play and build from there.

as long as your are not under bankrolled for a level then the $ in your account should not be part of your thinking when playing.

It may seem like you are playing for silly amounts of cash. you could spend hours online and only make 24c but this is where you should be looking at winrate ie bb/100 or bb/hour not the value of $ you made.

[MMagicM]

Start at NL2. It's way more fun to work your way up than to have to move down when you are losing. It builds confidence and pads your bankroll.

You need to keep in mind that the maximum buy-in for NL2 on Stars is $5, i.e. I would suggest to deposit at least $100 to give you 10 full buy-ins.

However, I felt more comfortable in the beginning (i.e. first 1000 hands or so) to buy-in in for only $2 to get a feel for the game without risking too much of my roll. Even if there are some players at your table with bigger stacks, a lot of people at NL2 buy-in for only a buck or 2.

[Doc T River]

Thanks for all the replies.

I do have quite a bit of experience in no limit, but it has been mainly in bar tournaments or other "live" settings. I also play a lot of freerolls onlines, but I don't play that much play money ring games.

As I would consider myself a newbie (and probably most people would agree) in terms of online play, I am going to start with the .01/.02 level.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to keep in mind that the maximum buy-in for NL2 on Stars is $5, i.e. I would suggest to deposit at least $100 to give you 10 full buy-ins.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be 20 250 big blind buy-ins.

People keep repeating 20 buy-ins out of context. This is an example. It is much, much harder to lose 250 BB on an hand than to lose 100 BB. You do not have to buy in for 250 BB--despite the common misconception, buying in for less than the maximum does not put you at a disadvantage at all. NL with a $0.02 big blind does not require anywhere near as many buy-ins as a game where people play try to keep tehir money.

It is very hard to lose $10 at this level. If you are a winning player, and are so absurdly conservative that you feel you need to have $100 playing with a big blind of $0.02, then you should a few hundred buy-ins at NL $25, and perhaps a thousand buy-ins in a tough game. If those seem excessive, then so is having $100 to play NL with a $0.02 big blind.

Of course, if you aren't confident that you are a winning player, then having a budget (not a bankroll) of $100 may give you room to learn to win. If you are learning, it is a bad idea to buy in for 250 big blinds at a time. Buying in for 50 big blinds is more reasonable. If you hope to play for higher stakes, note that the maximum buy-in is usually 100 big blinds, so you may want to practice that.

If someone asks how to play top pair, you'd say it depends. You would not say push all-in, or check-fold. If someone asks how many buy-ins you need, you should say it depends. You should not say 20 buy-ins, even though that is occasionally correct, at levels that are not close to NL with a $0.02 big blind.

[Doc T River]

That is something that Mark Blade stresses in his book. He says it is wrong to give a pat answer of you need X number of buy-ins.