knowing when to leave

[The_Fish 0]

I have a relatively small bankroll (about $3000) and generally play $2/5 six handed no-limit cash games. I always buy-in for the minimum as I feel my aggressive playing style is best-suited to short stack play as this limits losses. I often leave a game when i feel i have more money sitting in front of me than i am prepared to lose. Tonight however, i found a table with two complete fish. Within no time i'd gone from $100 to $500 but felt that the players were too bad to leave the table. A few hands later i was outdrawn by one of them and lost everything. Do you think that with my bankroll i should have left, or was right to stay to exploit the opportunity?

[Scott3705 0]

I have a relatively small bankroll (about $3000) and generally play $2/5 six handed no-limit cash games. I always buy-in for the minimum as I feel my aggressive playing style is best-suited to short stack play as this limits losses. I often leave a game when i feel i have more money sitting in front of me than i am prepared to lose. Tonight however, i found a table with two complete fish. Within no time i'd gone from $100 to $500 but felt that the players were too bad to leave the table. A few hands later i was outdrawn by one of them and lost everything. Do you think that with my bankroll i should have left, or was right to stay to exploit the opportunity?

1. I think you should buy in for the max if you think you're a strong player.2. It does not matter when you leave a table. In the long run you win/lose no matter when you leave.In general, if you are a strong player I feel that buyin in for th e minimum is not a good idea. Also, I think you are mistaken with your perception of the way people approach a small stack in NL. I'm more willing to call with marginal hands against small stacks because my losses are limited. Where as I'm more apprhensive of clashing with a big stack because he can stack me during any hand i'm in with him.

[offmandh 0]

yea dude, this buying in for the min idea really is not a good one. also if the game is juicy you should stay as long as possible. stay for as long as you think you have an edge. when you stop having an edge (tired, whatev) its time to go.

[benhoug 0]

yea dude, this buying in for the min idea really is not a good one.  

Couldn't agree more. I guess there's a place for short-buying, but I'll never do it.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

yea dude, this buying in for the min idea really is not a good one.

Couldn't agree more. I guess there's a place for short-buying, but I'll never do it.

If there it is, it's not 6max 2/5.If you're that short-rolled, don't play 6 Max.ChuckSty could talk about this a little more, but the variance in 6 max is huge andyou're really asking to go broke.

[Stealth Beagle 0]

If you're that short-rolled, don't play 6 Max.

I heartily agree. With your bankroll, why not, say, a full ring $1-$2 NL?

[Merby 3]

I have a relatively small bankroll (about $3000) and generally play $2/5 six handed no-limit cash games. ...

I didn't need to read any further. You are playing above your bankroll. I strongly urge you to consider playing 1/2 NLHE with only $3000 (in fact, I consider $3,000 a minimum bankroll at 1/2) Buy-in for the maximum, and you won't be put to the test as to when you should leave.Any time the amount of money at the table starts affecting your decision, it's a sign you're playing with too large a portion of your bankroll. I recommend getting up and leaving at this point (you have booked a nice win, anyway...) You are not playing at your optimum, and even if there are great fish at your table, I feel you are putting more than too much money at stake: if you end up losing what is (to you) far too much money, then you're liable to lose confidence in your poker game for several weeks afterwards -- much worse than just losing the money at the table.Bottom line: Don't risk what you can't afford to lose!-- There's more to this saying than the obvious. Even if you don't lose the money, your mind won't be fully on the poker while you're playing -- at least part of it will dwell on what's at stake...Now go crush those 1/2 NLHE tables!Cheers,Merby

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

If Aseem read this thread, he'd sh!t a brick.I think us lag-loving no limit players have scared him away though... which isn't a good thing, because Aseem rocks at poker.The question is: "What should I buy in for?"And the answer is: it doesn't matter, and it's all relative to your playing ability in the long run.

Within no time i'd gone from $100 to $500 but felt that the players were too bad to leave the table.

That feeling has cost me some money in the past, but it's still a good reason to keep playing if the game is that bad.Welcome to the forum. My advice to your first post is...Drop WAAAAAAAY the hell down in stakes, and beat bad players $25 at a time. It's good for the soul.

[The_Fish 0]

Cheers for the advice,Fish

[ArseneLupin3 0]

I think you should learn to play poker as opposed to being a nit who only knows how to deal with a 20bb stack. Drop down in limits and learn to play a real stack shorthanded. Then these situations won't be so upsetting.If you got your money in good, that's swell.If you were playing scared, that's not.-adam

[iggymcfly 0]

Yeah, if you think $400 is a "really big" win, then there's no way you should be playing 2-5 NL. If you become a good poker player, you can win a lot more at small stakes.Last night, I was playing 1-2 NL on the internet, (I finally had to drop down in stakes; my bankroll was running out), and I made $1500 in three hours. Optimal deep stack play is way better for your bankroll than screwing around with a short stack.A lot of people have the mistaken idea that short buy-ins allow them to play higher then their bankrolls would normally allow because they can lose less in a session, but really it just increases the likelihood that they'll either have a losing session or will have to cut their session short. It's one thing if 2/5 is the only live game you can find, but if there's a 1/2 game around, I'd advise that you play that until you feel comfortable coming in with a full buy-in.

[srblan 0]

If you'd bought in for the max when you sat down, they might not have had money to bust you with later. Play with an adequate roll, or move down.

[fopkins 0]

2. It does not matter when you leave a table. In the long run you win/lose no matter when you leave.

Bad advice. If the game is fishy, stay in as long as you can. If the game is rocky, find a new game.-fop

[Scott3705 0]

 Bad advice.  If the game is fishy, stay in as long as you can.  If the game is rocky, find a new game.-fop

I often leave a game when i feel i have more money sitting in front of me than i am prepared to loseThe OP's statement above indicates that he decides to leave based on how much money he has in front of him... not the caliber of play. If it makes it easier for you: in the long run, if a game is beatable, it doesn't matter when you leave a single game in the long run.