bank roll

[ceire]

If you played (say £1-£2)you would need £4000 for a bank role but if you only bought in for £100 everytime could you play on a £2000 bank roll?

[ceire]

anyone?

[sk8ram]

If you're asking if you need a smaller bankroll to short stack at higher limits then technically yes, although this isn't a brilliant strategy.

I believe the answer would be yes if you were good at playing short stacked but not many people are, and you'd be better off with a full buy-in at the highest limit your bankroll can allow for. You also need to feel comfortable at the level you're at and having a nice big stack normally makes that easier.

A lot of people suggest that when taking shots at a higher limit you should buy-in short and to some extent this is fine, but you do lose a lot of value not having 100BB in the game.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you only bought in for £100 everytime could you play on a £2000 bank roll?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could, of course.

What is your winrate in this game? How will short stacking affect your variance? What is your acceptable risk of ruin?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you played (say £1-£2)you would need £4000
for a bank role but if you only bought in for £100 everytime could you play on a £2000 bank roll?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are applying the 20 buy-in guess out of context.

Twenty buy-ins is not appropriate for most people in most games. There are assumptions built in. Your example is violating those assumptions in multiple ways. Now, it might be that 20 buy-ins is right, just as a stopped clock might be right, but there are much better tools to use than to hope that 20 buy-ins applies to all contexts. These help to answer your question.

A consistent bankroll guideline is to use bankroll = comfort * standard deviation^2/win rate. No one can tell you what your win rate is, and if it is negative, you will lose any amount eventually. Most players lose. Many marginal winners win less than 10 big blinds/100, but some experts can win about 30 big blinds/100 at NL $25, and 20 big blinds/100 at NL $100. In NL, the standard deviation also depends on your playing style more than in limit, but some full-ring players have a SD of about 80 big blinds/100 hands. The comfort level you prefer depends on your personal risk tolerance and ability/willingness to move down if you hit a downswing. Most people are happy with a comfort level between 2 and 4.

Do you know if you are a winning player with both of these buy-in amounts? Buying in for 50 big blinds means your play should change. Some players know how to win with 100 BB stacks (e.g., a set-miner), but don't know how to win with a 50 BB stack, and vice versa (e.g., a winning limit player who is trying NL). Typical experts will win more with a deeper buy-in, but also have a higher standard deviation. The net result is that buying in for 50 big blinds may reduce an expert's bankroll requirements, but not usually by a factor of 2.

Also, although it is common for people to say that you should move down and buy in for the full amount, an expert should make more $/hand by moving up and buying in short over a wide range of stakes. Buying in short may tend to cut your win rate if you are the best player in the game. It might not, depending on which mistakes people are making and the stack sizes of the people around you. However, moving down in stakes tends to cut your win rate much more. It's quite common that someone could win 6 BB/100 after buying in for 50 BB, and 8-10 BB/100 by cutting the stakes in half and buying in full. Of course, some people know how to beat the lower game, but do not know how to win in the higher game with any buy-in amount.

I hope this clarifies what information you need to determine to answer the question for yourself. I believe this is much more accurate than saying, "Why not?" or "Nah, that looks wrong."