Remember, it's TWO buyins, not just doubling up. Let's see the theory tested accurately.

I assume you'd have to double up 2.5 times just for a $1000 buyin. Then what?

Not sure it's a good idea, but I'm glad you guys are getting something out of it.

Sorry, it should be double up TWICE. That way you take $400 into the $200NL buy in. If you lose, you still have 2 buy ins for the $1000. Double up twice at the $200NL for $800 and you'd have two buy ins for the $400NL table.

You're leveraging the initial $100 into potentially a lot of money and monster ROI. I could see where it would work, esp with great skills. Learning potential is very high, too. A great way, too, to get a lot of experience and comfort at playing higher stakes, if one remembers it's only that first hundred invested. Finally, it's like raising to find out where you are. If you are the sucker at the table, you know where to spend your time, money and energy.

Sorry if I confused anyone with the initial post.

CJ

Don't you mean $100 (not $1000)?

So you mean double up twice at the same table? So you actually have 4 buy ins in your stack. Jeez...you confused the hell out of me

I normally cant play long enough in one stretch to quarduple up so although the idea is interesting. I doubt i'll be able to do it.

Oh well, I found out that the $100NL at Prima is the land of weakies. The $200 at Prima is much tougher (which doesnt mean its all that tough)

for me-I don't care what the original rules were---I had a great time just doubling up, and moving up each time...I think I will try it every week or two...I look forward to sittin' in that 400NL game again!!

Take #5641268452136561321546513564793134610631
Quiet on the set.
And....
Action!

Let's try this again.

The Catapult Theory says if you have the skills to play the game, you can build your bankroll from a small amount to a large amount very quickly by way of leveraging your initial buyin. Archimedes postulated the principle of leverage in ancient Greece. The principle says that one can use a small amount of force to raise a great weight. "Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand, and I can lift the world," Archimedes said. This is how the Catapult Theory is supposed to work.

You take $100, double your stake twice. Keep $200 in reserve and buy in at the $200NL tables. Double it twice, again, keeping now $400 in reserve--which will now be $600 in your bankroll. If you can double it twice, again, you now have $2200 in your bankroll--$1600 from $400NL, $400 from $200NL, and $200 from the $100NL tables.

If you are skilled enough to play at the $1000NL table--enough to double up twice again--then you would now have $6200.

Now, if you were skilled enough,and to be honest, lucky enough, you could play the $5000NL table. Should you again be able to double up twice, you'd now have $26,200 in your bankroll, from a $100 investment. Taken one step more, if you took $20,000 and doubled it up twice again, you'd have $106,200. On a $100 investment. Talk about leverage! Maybe this isn't what ol' Archimedes had in mind, but I think he'd be pretty proud. And we did it without standing, but finding a place to sit, and the courage and skill to do it.

If you aren't skilled enough or lucky enough, you risk only $100--the initial investment to get to $400. Once you have passed that threshold, you have the original $100 plus another $100 in reserve.

Ok, let's say you stumble on the $1000NL tables. If you lose that stake, you'd still be up $1200 and could drop back down to the $400NL tables, where you were successful. Double up twice, again, and you're back to the $1000NL tables, with an even greater bankroll than when you were forced to drop back down.

The risk is the initial $100 and playing for all of it. That's it. Even putting $5000 on the table, isn't risking it all, not even that paltry $100. Who wouldn't put up a lousy hundred bucks to sit at a $20,000NL table? If one accomplished this titanic feat, think about how much they'd get out of it, beyond the money.

For risking a hundred bucks.

Think of this, gentlemen. Is this not exactly the same way we build our bankrolls in the first place? The only difference, really, is time. Risk of ruin? $100 isn't going to ruin me.

Because of my error, you guys are playing a different game, and that's pretty funny. You're enjoying the game you're playing and I encourage you to keep doing it, as you are having fun and have found a challenge. I wish all my mistakes had a positive result. I apologize for the initial mistake. (I must think that if I hadn't, the whole idea would have been dismissed as folly, however, so maybe it's not that much of a mistake after all.)

I've been playing online now for a solid year, on Royal Vegas' and Pacific's $10 each. I think I can afford to take a few shots at this. Heck, it would take me a long time to blow that original $20. A very long time, indeed.

That's the challenge. Even failing would be rewarding, I think. I think I'd hate going broke on a $20,000 table, but not so much if I remember I'm only out that first $100, and even that was somebody else's money!

Not a bad way to start the New Year.

CJ

This is just the old Party poker $25 Challenge only then you moved up at 4 buy-ins not 2 and started playing 4x$25 tables rather than 1x$100.

It's just taking a shot really - fun if it works and may help focus if you are getting stale I guess, but let's not overegg its usefulness

mike caro's rule of bankroll management comes into play here eventually. risking $100 is easy...but when you start risking $5000 a pop..i doubt that money is easily replaceable. I think this is a decent plan except at a certain point (when the money becomes unreplacable), it's time to stick at one limit and build.