Question for regular ringers

If you get up on a table real quick, like 80% up, do you take the money and run?

I ask because last night I got up 125% (25NL) real early but had in my mind I wanted to play 100 hands. 2 bad beats and it was all gone. I had toyed with the notion of taking the money and running, but a different goal (the 100 hands thing) took precedence.

Tonight I got up 80% (same game) and I left.

In 351 games I am dead even. I did this mainly to clear a bonus a bit faster, and from that POV I am probably gonna get to the $7.50 part of it. More importantly, I think I have shown myself that I can play at this level. Never mind that my BR really doesn't warrant this big a game, rather that I can take a hit, and come back and not feel tilted.

I can say that over the 4 days I've done these that rings are a grind compared to tourneys. Tourneys are finite, clean and clear, and way different than ring.

Another reason I am playing these is that from all I read here, the games lower than this seem to still suffer the donk factor, not to be confused with the XX factor. So far I have not seen nearly the number of fish I would have expected.

Still the question stands. Take the money and run, or stick it out thinking bigger thoughts?

If I double up fast I ALWAYS take the money and run. But I only run to another table and buy in with the money I've just won.

Personally I have never taken the money and run but I can see merit in booking the win and starting again on another table. I find some players respect a bigger stack more and there are others who will go after you more so in that respect it's a wash. I also tend to add on most any time I get 3 BB below the table max as I always want to be able to play for the most $$ I can if/when I get it all in.

I think it really depends alot on style of play. I personally like to buy in for $50 at $100 tbl because I like to play bigger stacks than me.

If loosing the $60 you have at the table affects you, ie tilts you, or if it is more than 10%(ferguson BR guidlines) of your BR then i definately leave. But if its just another buy-in play on because you get a bit more respect as a deep stack in the rings.

I usually hit and run if I get up big quick, and go elsewhere to try my luck. I will sometimes stick if the table appears esp. loose or soft, but I feel like it's pressing your luck.

I look for a good game and stick with it. You can't worry about bad beats. You can't worry about being stuck in a good game either. Find the fishy players and play against them. It's definitely negative EV to be leaving a juicy game because you're up.

I'll stick around as long as the fish are biting (as long as their not biting my stack). When the game becomes too tough or my big hands aren't getting action, I'll leave.

I only hit and run if I got a low bankroll ( under 20 buyins)

But normally I like to be the bigstack...

Rules for me when 12-tabling 25nl. If any table gets below $25, instant reload (yes this includes the first BB I pay). If I break $40 at one table, let the blinds get to me and get away. There are plenty more tables to sit at and when 80% of the players there are total fish, no reason to worry about leaving a fishy table. Always plenty more where that came from .


Obviously it doesn't matter if all the other players are below the initial buy-in, but for example I had KK run into AA when we both had $50+ at the 25nl table. Althoguh I realize if he had done that with QQ I would have won $50 (assuming my hand held up), I'd rather not be playing 200 bb deep. You simply HAVE to bet more with premiums preflop because of the implied odds and this leads to either folds or then having to decide whether to lay down AA do a QT4 rainbow flop. At 100 bb deep that's fine and I'd gladly stack with that board (well depending on opponent, but you know what I mean), but the extra 100 bb makes it much tougher to play.

It is assumptions like this that I feel give me an advantage playing against bigger stacks, but as I said before it all depends on play style and what you;re comfortable with

Again, being rather new to the bigger game ($25NL) I found that indeed, the biggest stack at the table gets the most respect. This was good for maybe 3 steals, then that respect turned into a target. Perhaps I tried stealing too frequently. Harrington suggests about once every hour-90 minutes, but that is tourney stuff, and in an hour the whole ring table may have changed personnel.

Since I don't have to deal with players with weepy eyes about how I'm taking their kids lunch money if I walk off with their money, I think from a purely profit motive I will be taking the money and running. Probably to another table.

What was i assuming? That a deepstack gets more respect?
If so it is generally true in my expierence.

Shortstacks only have and advantage against large stacks if the shortstacker is less skilled than his opponents. Here is a good article on the disadvatages of short-stack play.

Basically what happens with a shortstack is they get increased fold equity and dont need to make any tough decisions post flop, as they are usually all in at this point. Once a SS is all in then if there is more than one DS(deepstack) still in the hand then the SS could have increased Fold equity because one of the deepstacks could bet the other deepstack out of the pot. When this happens the SS has an increased chance of winning the hand without increasing the amount of money they risk to win the hand.

But alternatively if you have an edge in the game you play then Deep stacking is better. Why? Beacuase deepstacking allows you to extract the most amount of value out of every situation. Some may argue that even though you win more when you do win, you also loose more when you loose but if you have an edge in the game you are playing then you are going to win more than you loose and you $ won will be greater if you have a deepstack than if you have a shortstack.

If you have a target on you, then tightening up a little and nut peddling will win you alot more money than changing tables and playing the same as before you had the target on you.

Ultimately if players target you then they are more likely to play weaker hands for bigger pots against you. So the efectively play looser against you. There this means that by tightening your game you adjust to the surroundings and will win more money in this now LAG game albeit higher varience than if you were to change tables and not tighten up your game.

Since I play limit, stack size is somewhat irrelevant. And there are so few limit tables that I stay at the tables I select as long as I want to play. I do buy into the tables for twice what FT default is, but this double is what the Stars default is. Go figure. That amount usually allows me to play without ever having to rebuy.

That happened to me today. Bought in @ 25NL, went up to $60 after a couple hours...lingered between 50 and 60 until I had Qs and lost to As and found myself back at 25. After 5 hours of total play I left with 26...

Do whatever you feel comfortable w/. If the shoe fits wear it. If it's hit-N-run or stay-N-play you make your own decision based on whatever you feel like doing.

If no one else at the table has a deepstack to hurt you, why would you leave? You can only lose what your opponents have, and if you plan on buying in for the full amount at the next table anyway, then all you have done is sacrifice possible advantages: your opponents might mistakenly fear you because of your stack size, even though effective stacks are only that of the smaller of the two.

Your opponents also may be intimidated because they think you are a strong player if you have more than the max buy-in in front of you.

Further, if you are beating the table such that you have accumulated a bunch of money, wouldn't that indicate that you have found a lucrative situation, and therefore would want to stay as long as possible?

why do you put a set number of hands you want to play at any table.. why not leave when your way ahead.. leaving while ahead is a good way to build up your bankroll.. go to another table and start all over again.

I agree with what Aliengenius said.
If you go from $25 to $45 at a table full of $25 stacks, the most you can lose in one hand is $25. That's the same amount you can lose by going to another table and buying in for the full $25. Only, by leaving you lose the reads you had on players, the tilt you might have put them on by taking their money, and the intimidating stack of chips that can buy you some respect/fear.

I stick around for another couple 20 hands or so. Kinda like how old people dont like to leave a slot machine on the jackpot they just won.

I like to make sure i played my luck out at that table. Sounds stupid i know. lol

not really. i 16 table and ahave had session where on 15 tables combined i am down a buy-in and on one particularly donkish table i am 4 or 5.

You can easily lost $45 in one hand against 2-3 other players