Wow excession, just wow. Did you run into the 700 by luck or were you an accomplished player at the time?

That would be sheer dumb luck mostly (although I had maybe 400x $5 SnG's under my belt so had a bit of a clue).

I read on another web site that your bankroll should be big enough so that you're session stake consists of between 1% and 2% of your total bankroll. This would mean you need between 1250 and 2500 for the $25NL tables. Is 20 buy-ins a good bankroll if you have a little gamble in you and is 50 to 100 buy ins a safer bankroll if you were to play for a living?

Mac, if I'm understanding you correctly, your post is going against the conventional wisdom, which is that 6-max and other shorthanded games are much swingier and require bigger bankrolls than full ring games. At full ring (especially lower limits) you can sit back, wait for your big hands, and clobber people overplaying their top pair and two pair hands.

You use the term "small pot poker" -- I'm not even sure what that means. If you're playing no-limit, how on earth can you play "small pot poker"? I mean, if your opponent pushes, you have to decide whether to call or not. If you fold every time you'll be in trouble.

Fair enough. Consider me warned.

I do imagine you are right as I move up in levels, but I will keep my strategy until I get to the NL100 level at least. I will likely slow down as I'm sure I will not have as many poor players to take advantage of. I don't multitable at all though, so I think that should help me a little more too.

[quote]I will keep my strategy until I get to the NL100 level at least. I will likely slow down as I'm sure I will not have as many poor players to take advantage of.[/quote

i think you'll need to go higher to really reduce the number of poor players. they're just bad players in different ways.