Hey, what's up pot-bettors?

I'm a 2-4 limit player who would like to start supplementing (or possibly detracting from) my poker earnings with some NL cash games. I'm not exactly new to NL..I used to play a lot on Stars where I'd estimate my "win-rate" to be in the vicinity of -73BB/100. Okay, I'm not actually that bad.

These days, I'm playing on Empire, where the blinds are twice as high as compared to the buy-in. What kind of guide-line should I use for determining an adequate bankroll? I've heard that 20-25 buy-ins is sufficient, which would put me in the $50 games...but should I try to shoot a bit higher considering the different blind structure?

I should also mention that my bankroll is not exactly easily-replaceable; I'm currently living off of my poker winnings (and yes, at 2-4, it's a real grind), so I definitely will be starting at the $25 level until I get more comfortable with the high-blinds/NL play. I'll also be posting plenty of embarassingly-played hands so that you fine people can help me improve, and so that Ice can call me all sorts of uncomplimentary names. Basically, my main question for now is what kind of bankroll guidelines a "pro" should use for Empire/Party's NL games.

Lastly, a disclaimer; when I use the term "pro", I don't mean to indicate that my level of play is anywhere near "professional", or "expert", or for that matter, "decent." I'm simply referring to the difference between playing as a hobby and playing for a living.

-TightWad

Im torn on that subject. I would like to say that you would want "more" buy ins for a 50BB buy in game like at Empire, but since the play is so bad and you are more likely to double up than bust, sometimes I think it all evens out and 20 buy ins is fine.

I would go ahead and play the $50NL game and if you lose 5 buy ins or so, I would cut back to the $25NL game.

Some guy once told me that for a losing player, there's no such thing as an "adequate" bankroll. I found that to be a very pessimistic and depressing point of view, and hope to god that the guy's wrong.

Anyway, back on topic. I've got about 30 buy-ins at the $50 level, which should be sufficient if I don't play like too much of a bonehead. Nevertheless, I'm gonna stick with $25 for a week or so, just to make sure I'm not too rusty. Thanks for the help, ice-pack.

-TW

Tighty, your sense of humor is very refreshing. I love to read your posts, because I know there will alwasy be somthing humerous tucked in there somewhere.

By the way, dont forget that, expecially at Party, there is a big difference between sliding your chips into the pot and plunking them down on the table. I prefer the "plunking" of course. It shows much more authority and confidence.

Another thing to consider is continuing on with your limit game and perhaps bump it up to 36 limit when you reach 1800-2000. If you are a decent limit player and I suppose you are if you are paying the bills from 24 I think you can make more per hour multitabling the 36 games than playing the 50 NL there particularly if you are rusty as you say or perhaps combine the two with a table of 25 NL to get you back in the groove while still making money at your limit game. Just something to consider. Good luck.

Thanks for the response, Piers,

I do fully intend to continue to play limit, more-so than NL, in fact. 2000 is my target bankroll for moving up to 3-6. I'm just mixing in the NL to try to add a little variety.

From my first couple of NL sessions (25), I realized that I was definitely very rusty, but also that these players are bad enough that I shouldn't have too much trouble at least posting a half-decent winrate. Especially when I managed to get all-in on the flop with my set of 3's and the guy with AJ called me. The board was 3-5-T, so I can see why ace-high held certain appeal...

Ice, I should mention one thing I've noticed about many Party games: a lot of players show the tendency to "fire in" their bets and raises, which I feel is a drastic error at this level. Being a relative amatuer, I'll gladly stick with the tossing.

-TW