bankroll

[johnnyawe]

Hello.. I've been lurking here for a while. I play at the 25 NL tables at PP. I enjoy learning from the discussions on here.

Does anyone have a system for changing tables or taking money off the table (can you even do this?) after winning a certain amount? I realize the opposite is supposed to be true, but I've found that having the big stack at a table can put me at a disadvantage. I'm talking about when I get up to between 50 and 100 at the 25 NL tables.

There are two reasons for this; one mathematical and one psychological.

On the psychological end, I usually find myself playing too loose when I have a lot of chips. I play cards I normally wouldn't, I bluff way too much, or even worse, I try to become the hero of the table and call everyone else's bluff. These three together tend to be a recipe for disaster.

On the mathematical end, I'm vulnerable to losing TONS of money against an all-in bet from another big stack. Or, I may not call a huge bet even when I should, because I don't want to lose $50 on one hand. If I had less money, I cap the amount I can lose on one hand, and this makes it easier to make those all-in or huge bet calls.

Any thoughts on this?

[Ragingguitarist18]

i remember having this exact same problem, i'd be chasing those flush draws because I had a big stack, I learned to eventually stick to the same strategy with a big stack but leaving the table and coming back in for the 25 buy in can help also

[mike4066]

you can't "take it off" you'd have to give up your seat and sit back down.

If there is a waiting list you'd proably lose your seat.

[ttanaka]

Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about, I used to have a system where I would leave once I doubled up to $50, for the same reasons you mentioned.

But I'm much more comfortable playing with the big stacks now, and prefer having as much money on the table as possible. I realized that I can just make more by having more money on the table. Doubling to $50 is good, but then doubling that to $100 is where it's at.

[Eric]

I know what you mean. Once you have one of the highest stacks your options seem to open up and your advantage increases.

[Fnord]

Depends on the table texture.

If you're looking at a bunch of fish at around and under the buy-in with another shark or two on a tall stack you want the short stack, since it controls the damage the shark can do you to you. Also, if you're dealing with chasers, having deeper money gives them better implied pot odds (if they got you covered deep enough) and greater oportunity to bluff scare cards.

Also, consider getting pocket kings or aces. If the money is deep enough it becomes marginal/profitable to call 4-6x the BB with just about anything playable given the implied pot odds. This puts you in a position where you either have to raise 'em even more (and hence are more likely to just pick up the blinds) or go for limp/re-raise tricks.

A tall stack is a double edged sword. Whenever I get a tall stack I'm re-evaluating how profitable the game is for me and will often pick up and find a new table if I don't think the game favors my stack.

Finally, consider the mental damage done when you pick up small pots buiding up to 2x the buy in over an hour or so and lose it all on one hand where you are out-flopped or out-drawn.

Then again maybe I'm just sore about the last big HE pot I played in.

Pot-limit game with lots of loose players. QQ in MP with around $38 in chips. With limpers in front I raise pot (about 7x BB) and the tall stack (solid aggressive player) calls. Flop is rag-rag-rag. I bet half the pot. Now I'd done this with AK and KQ missing then took down the pot at showdown on a couple previous hands on the table. I think he saw this as a read and goes over the top for pot (my stack minus a couple dollars.) I correctly put him on a medium pair and go all-in. He catches a 9 on the river for a set. Arggh!

[Bite]

I think it's usually good to be the tall stack. At least if it's bigger than 4 times the buy-in. The possibility of bullying is great here since the new players that buy in will have only 1/4 of your stack. I think it gives the advantage of playing more hands and hitting more flops and picking up some blinds. I usually just try to avoid getting trapped and rather throw a big hand than jeopardizing a major part of my stack. Then again...my stack usually stops to grow when it reaches that point so I guess I'm not playing it right. But it feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels better

[johnnyawe]

Finally, consider the mental damage done when you pick up small pots buiding up to 2x the buy in over an hour or so and lose it all on one hand where you are out-flopped or out-drawn.

Exactly. The hand you gave as an example was gut-wrenching.

One of the advantages of staying at a table that I didn't consider in my original post is the ability to pick up the other players tendencies. However, I still think I'm going to switch tables after I've built up a nice stack. As your example shows, you can be reading someone perfectly and still lose to a bad beat. Its just not worth the heartbreak to lose an entire tall stack in one hand.

Thanks to all for your input on the subject.

[Bite]

Its just not worth the heartbreak to lose an entire tall stack in one hand.

I think it is. You have to play a big stack differently from a small stack off course. But if the odds are at your side say 80-20 why would you wanna bet less? If there is another player with a huge stack and you have an 80% chance of getting all of it, wouldn't you take it? Assume you have pocket aces. Wouldn't you jeopardize your whole stack against another monsterstack all in before flop?

[Fnord]

I think it is. You have to play a big stack differently from a small stack off course. But if the odds are at your side say 80-20 why would you wanna bet less? If there is another player with a huge stack and you have an 80% chance of getting all of it, wouldn't you take it? Assume you have pocket aces. Wouldn't you jeopardize your whole stack against another monsterstack all in before flop?

How much of your bankroll are you willing to risk on a single +EV situation? How about if you're only a 55/45 favorite?

More likely this kind of stuff comes up...

You got AA and raise to 6x the BB. Flop looks raggy, you bet out, another tall stack goes over the top. Do you call? He might have KK or QQ.

[Bite]

I think it is. You have to play a big stack differently from a small stack off course. But if the odds are at your side say 80-20 why would you wanna bet less? If there is another player with a huge stack and you have an 80% chance of getting all of it, wouldn't you take it? Assume you have pocket aces. Wouldn't you jeopardize your whole stack against another monsterstack all in before flop?

How much of your bankroll are you willing to risk on a single +EV situation? How about if you're only a 55/45 favorite?

More likely this kind of stuff comes up...

You got AA and raise to 6x the BB. Flop looks raggy, you bet out, another tall stack goes over the top. Do you call? He might have KK or QQ.

This is a situation where I'd surely fold if the other guy has a stack nearly as big as mine. If he's shortstack I might take my chances. I'll only risk my huge stack when I am positive I am a big favourite to win it, e.g I flopped the nut flush but there is allways a slim chance that someone else might hit a boat on the turn or the river. I would say this is worth the risk. And if it's a major part of my bankroll I probably play too high stakes.

[Ragingguitarist18]

i don't know about this, I would probably go ahead and move all in first if i get the chance, the reason is because I don't want to outguess myself. Unless the board looks very scary like 9-10-J of spades and I don't have a spade, and I'm absolutely convinced I am beat I can let it go confidently. Any other flop if I call the all in and I see my aces are cracked, then my aces are cracked.

[leon_rts]

Hmm 55 vs 45 % is intant ALL IN