I am currently taking what I consider fairly aggressive shots in Omaha, where I should have higher bankroll requirements. But, I'm using my standard hold'em method. My method works like so:
- Move up with 30 buy-ins for the new level (say $300 at PLO10).
- Must move down if I have fewer than 20 buy-ins at the current level (drop below $200 at PLO10). That means I'll have almost 40 buy-ins at PLO5, which I can use to rebuild.
- Must stop/step-down if I lose more than 4 buy-ins in a session and that amount puts me below 30 total for the level. This is a tilt-control measure. Basically, if I start with 33 buy-ins and lose 5, putting me at 28, I must stop or move down for that day. I still have enough to play that level tomorrow. If I had 36 buy-ins and lost 5, I could still keep playing. As along as I stay above the 30 mark. It's a bit arbitrary, but it works for me.
- Reduce the number of tables when stepping up. I am already not playing too many tables at once, because the game is new for me, but when I step up I drop down to 1-2 tables max.
- Stop following fish up! ** OK, this one I haven't been doing. I should. I had been playing a guy at $10 No-Limit Omaha, and he moved up to $25 NL Omaha with a short buy-in ($12.50). I justified it because it was a short buy-in table. I ended up losing $26 on those tables (my all-in EV was actually only -$2 but I wasn't running well). I shouldn't have gone up. I had the edge on the player, but not the bankroll to handle if things went really bad--which, thankfully, didn't happen.
I'm currently going from $10 -> $25, which is a large jump. Basically, need to win 45 buy-ins at this level instead of the normal 30. I am also learning the game, so I'm not exactly crushing it. Currently at +9.6 bb/100 but the sample size is LOL-small (2.3k hands).
I have used a similar method when going up in stakes in Hold'em. Sometimes even more aggressive by moving up at 20 and dropping down at 15. That was mostly at the lower levels. When I went from $25NL to $50NL, I found that I was stepping up and down annoyingly often. So, I started aiming for 50+ buy-ins at the level before moving up. And, right before Black Friday, I was going to start taking shots at $100NL, with 75 buy-ins. So, I was definitely more conservative. I think you need to be more conservative when moving up to stakes outside the micros. Losing 40 buy-ins at $5NL? I can replace that amount easily, out of my pocket if I need to. losing 40 buy-ins at $200NL? That's an amount that's going to take time to replace from my pocket unless I am willing to do some tricky budget maneuvering.
Back when I started, I was determined to never deposit and only build from freerolls
. I told myself that if I lost it all, I would be done (or at least back to grinding freerolls). So, I was more conservative than I needed to be at the micros. I regret that now. It slowed down my progress to levels where I could make more money. Sure, I got to learn to beat the game at the cheapest levels, but I spent too much time at them. The less you are willing to deposit, the more conservative you need to be and the slower you will move up.
Edit: Day of the week and time of day, I don't seen too much difference at the micros. Not enough that I make it a point. I do have a serious difference in session length. The longer my session is, the more likely it is a losing one. But, I am not convinced of the cause/effect relationship for that one. I hate quitting when down, so I am more likely to play longer because I am losing. I am not sure that I am losing more often because I am playing longer. I think it is the other way around. Still, a max session length would probably be wise.