here you go historians

didnt know where else to post this one, just a thought...

you and i have both read that ...in the old days... players used to play tighter. you sit around all day to make a buck...or two.

nowadays, with the internet and tv, play has loosened up a lot. so they say.

if that is true, did the br guidelines evolve, too?

meaning, if you used to play a much tighter, conservative game against other tighter players...did variance matter as much? more?

the wilder and crazier the games, the more of a roll you need to carry, right? because the suckouts are harder to see coming?

so, were you ever able to get away with a roll of, say, 10 BI's?

or was it always 20+ min?

if not, why not?

I can't give a full answer but I'm sure I've read somewhere that most live players back in the day were playing dangerously underolled by todays accepted limits.

A tighter game would imply slightly lower variance but this doesn't rule out the 20x BI rule, and live players know that they need a higher bankroll than online anyway because of tipping dealers and seat rentals etc.

In other words I can't see how the advised number of BI would have changed too much, but in all likehilood many of the lower limit players would have been unaware of the risks of long downswings until they had encountered one and probably gone busto. Nowadays a lot of poker players are aware through forums and generally better advice that bankroll management is vital.

There's math behind bankroll management. It's a guideline for an amount where you have a very small chance of going broke.

The math only changes when your expectation changes. If you're expected to win 3 bets in a game nowadays in the same time frame you would have only won 1 back in the day, you'd actually need a smaller bankroll.

And I have to disagree with topsoyale; I think most live players think they need a smaller bankroll than online. The general conception is that it's harder to lose live.

Originally Posted by sejje

The math only changes when your expectation changes.

Thats not quite true. Its a function of winrate AND of variance. I dont know if the games are higher or lower varience these days. I think high stakes are alot more aggressive than they used to be...

thats kind of what i was thinking. i dont know either...about whether the variance has changed. but i do think that if play was tighter, then variance had to be smaller...for the standard tag.

variance has always been high for lags, but i feel there were fewer...particularly before the internet poker boom.

that leads me to believe the "recommended" br would have been lower. however, i feel that a doyle brunson or a tj cloutier would have still said you need 20-40 BIs to feel "comfortable." and it prolly depended on how much you depended on poker for income.

if play is looser and higher variance today...i wonder if the br numbers should actually be higher? just a thought, not a recommendation.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Thats not quite true. Its a function of winrate AND of variance.

Right, but I understand variance to be a function of winrate.

I'm not a math expert or anything, and maybe I'm wrong here, but that's how I've understood what I've read on the subject.


Anyway, I don't think someone's variance changes much unless their style changes.

Right, but I understand variance to be a function of winrate.
[/quote]

Not really. If you take variance to mean losing when you are actually a winning player then you are right. But if you take variance to mean how far away from your true winrate you are likely to be in a given week then its more a function of the size of the edge you are willing to push.

You could have a player who is a 5bb/100 winner (in some game) who just nutcamped and got it in with a big edge. => Person A

Or you could have a player who is a 4bb/100 winner who is also a nutcamper but not quite as good at it. => Person B

Or you could have a player who is a6bb/100 winner who pushes smaller edges than just nutcamping. He raises and bluffs in good spots with draws as well as sets etc etc. When the cards arent comming his way he loses alot but when they are, he wins even more so his overall wins more than A and B. => Person C.

C has the most varience. Then B, Then A. So it isnt in order of winrate.

i know i'm not, but sometimes i feel like player D.

the one who always runs bad...losing stack after stack, then, catches a small heater...just enough to make him come back tomorrow...

like the golfer who curses the game all day long. then, hits his best drive up the 18th, and says, "whos for 36 today? i'm warmed up now."