Omaha Shortstack Bankroll

luckylucky

I might be wrong but I would think with the higher variance in Omaha if you bought in for the full amount you would need somewhere in the region of 45 to 50 buy-ins bankroll. So say it's 50, for a $2-$4 game buying in for full amount you would need bankroll of $20K if you were being strict with your roll that is.

Now if you were going to play short stack style(20 big blinds = 1/5th the maximum). I think it stands to reason you can play off a smaller bankroll, but how much smaller? There's going to be even bigger variance in terms of your initial buy-in with this strategy.

I'm kind of thinking you would need somewhere in the region of 120 to 160 of your 20 big blind buyins. So taking 150 for simplicity, for a $2-$4 plo game you would need 150 x 80(1/5th of 400) = $12K.

This is only guess work from me, just wondering if anyone has more concrete info than this.

sikes

I would doubt it would be that high, but I have never looked into it in any real detail. Have you read Rolf whats his face book? I skimmed it but cant remember anything about BR requirements off the top of my head but that would be a good place to look i would have thought

HiCloy

I don't think the Rolf Slotboom book said anything about bankroll requirements

luckylucky

sikes wrote:

I would doubt it would be that high, but I have never looked into it in any real detail. Have you read Rolf whats his face book? I skimmed it but cant remember anything about BR requirements off the top of my head but that would be a good place to look i would have thought

Yeah I have read it (just went looking for it now and can't find it), it's what set me down the shortstacked route

Nope I don't remember seeing anything about BR requirements either in it.

Lafortezza

If you are shortstacking then you will end up all-in alot more frequently, ie playing for your whole stack. So you'll obviously need more buy-ins to cover those nasty periods of bad variance where you lose alot of 60/40s and coinflips.

I'd say you'd need a considerable amount more than 50 shortstack buy-ins to have an acceptable Risk of Ruin.

luckylucky

lafortezza wrote:

I'd say you'd need a considerable amount more than 50 shortstack buy-ins to have an acceptable Risk of Ruin.

That's what I was saying. My guess and it was only a guess was about 150.

Flipper

I really don't know much about short stack PLO because it's not my thing. There are (were) some half-decent ones on Pokerstars when I was there (JoelMick, Cocoblackcat etc) so I'd probably try and watch them.

As far as I can see, you should NEVER be the first to raise in a pot and always try to get it in pre-flop or enough so that you can jam the flop. Try to keep to good AAxx's and high rundown hands if getting better than 5/2 or 3/1.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if all the short-stackers in the world died in a fire at a Rolf Slotboom convention. I'm probably just saying that as they are so awkward to play agianst!!!

I would say you need much the same roll as you would for full buyins but it's a different way to play it. That why I thought the $10/$20 game on Tribeca was so good. It had a minimum of $1,000 and a max of $2,000.

Imposter

I think min50 max200 BB's would be a better structure for both Omaha and HE cash games at the moment. 50BB's is short enough to play that strategy and 200 is also good as 100 is sometimes not enough.

luckylucky

Imposter wrote:

50BB's is short enough to play that strategy and 200 is also good as 100 is sometimes not enough.

This is about the first time I think I've ever disagreed with you imposter, for a pure simple shortstack strategy 50 BBs is too high imo, you have to play some proper poker at times with 50 buy-ins . I guess in terms of preventing short stackers from 'spoiling' the game 50 buy-ins as a minimum makes sense as was operate on triebca at the 10-20 as Flipper said.

phantom_lord

if u do end up ss omaha, make sure to run like this guy!