Can I just make one tiny suggestion that won't put the OP in cardiac arrest?
Why not have the best of both worlds. If min's all you can afford or the only buy-in you're comfortable with, well, I gotta quote Gus Hansen and yo momma, and say if it's not broke don't fix it. But there's no rule that says you can't adapt it for the purposes of improving your game. From time to time, when you can't stop getting great hands, stay awhile longer than the 3x-4x the buyin stage. Stay and adapt until you're sitting with the max, and if you're really brave, stay until you have even more, but caveat emptor. It's dumb to do that if you haven't the right amount of loot to where u can afford to lose the minimum while learning. Still, it has it's strong suits. It's a chance to play deep stacked for a minimum buy-in. You'll pretty much be easing yourself into deep stack play, and from there you'll get enough experience to gain the confidence to buy in for the max + play well with the max.
You won't see a single pro saying they prefer to buy in for the min, this is true, but watch HSP sometimes, they're not all buying in for the max. Furthermore, Barry Greenstein bought in for the minimum for at least one session because he said that a short stack makes the big stacks play loose. Funny that was the same session where Daniel was losing heaps from his full buy ins. Oh yeah, that was NLHE of course, but still, there are good reasons to buy in for the min, and any pro who can't play short stacked, well, I'd say their game's kinda incomplete. The opposite's true too of course, but I still don't see how this is a black and white situation. It seems to be choose one, the other, or both. Easy peasy.