Full Stack vs. Medium Stack...?
I've just got back from the pub, had a few drinks, and I've finally managed to win the tournament they have down there. It's a £5 buy-in, winner-takes-all NLHE freeze-out and tonight there were 33 people in, managed to win it and come away with £100! So this gives me bankroll enough to start playing 10nl - I'd previously been playing 5nl without even being fully rolled for it, but I worked my way up to 50 dollars and now I'm rolled for that level. If I add the £100 in ($150), I'm rolled for 10nl.
However, when I've been playing 5nl, due to my bankroll, I've been putting $3.50 or $4.00 on each table as opposed to the full $5.00. I've come to feel comfortable with this, since I can lose a little and then double up and go for another double-up, or if I get a bad beat it doesn't seem so bad losing $3.50 as opposed to $5.00. Also, at 5nl there seems to be a fair amount of short stacks around, mostly held by the fish that most of my profit will be taken from, so it seems the times I'd be benefitting from having a big stack - when I'm going against what is more likely to be a decent player - I'm usually going to be in a more uncomfortable spot, and stand to lose more money.
I do, however, realise that the book states that one should be taking a full stack into each cash game. I can see the logic in this - you can win more money. I guess I could just do with a full explanation of the advantages of a full stack, get the reasoning drilled into my head or whatever.
So yeah, all words of advice in this area will be greatly appreciated.