Printable View
What is the general consensus regarding 6max bankroll managment?
What is the minimum amount one should have for 8-tabling NL $1/$2?
For someone like me who thinks $200 is a somewhat large sum of money I probably should not be moving up to $2/$4 until I reach about...?
Thanks in advance.
$5000
for 2/4 probably something like 12000
probably dont 8 table 6max. this will be high variance (especially when u say the buyin is a lot to you) and your not going to play good poker.
5k/12k sounds about right. For me, I moved to 2/4 when I hit 35 buyins ie 14k. If I was playing for a living I'd want more like 50.
Edit: fwiw I play 8 tables now and don't seem to encounter more variance than when I 6-tabled. I'm assuming that this is because I actually get myself into less marginal situations because I tend to not have enough time/focus to push the smallest of small edges.
10k for 8 tabling 1/2
not close
I dont know how that is accurate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by bearcats05
I also feel like the BR requirements are pretty arbitrary and people through numbers around a lot without really considering why. Personally I would agree with the common notion that 20 buyins is the absolute minimum and that as you go higher you should have more of a cushion because of the bigger swings, etc. However, I think that beyond those bare minimums it comes down to what you are comfortable with. If you have 20+ buyins and are comfortable moving up and down as needed and think you can play the game profitably and without being scared, then I dont really see the problem.
So you should probably move up when....you are comfortable with the money and your game. Id suggest taking some shots at 400nl at 8k [dont know if you have that already] and then re-evaluate what you think you need for a BR after that.
Whatever you do, just dont turn into a BR nit like Genitruc and play 200nl with 100+ buyins.
people don't get that 10-20 buyin downswing happen, even if u are really good, and especially if u aren't
8-tabling 1-2 NL with a 5K bankroll would be somewhat suicidal.
So many variables to consider here.
More buyins if you play high-variance poker.
More buyins if you play badly with scared money.
Fewer buyins if you play better "under pressure".
I think if you play standard-ish taggy poker 25-30 buyins should be safe at NL400. Personally I don't like playing any limit without 30-40 buyins so that swings don't affect my play and turn me into scared money.
edit : re : Andy - *sigh* I'm just preparing myself so that the 50 buy-in downswing doesn't put me on tilt :dance:
I really disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I have gone through them, I get that they happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
As I just said, Ive gone through huge downswings, 15 buyin downswing over like 30-40k hands [a lot I think was my play though] but the worst was probably dropping 7buyins over maybe 2k hands with literally 1 hand where I got it AI bad. So yea, shit happens and I understand that but I still stand by the fact that those swings are few and far between and the prolonged ones are more often going to be due to continued bad play.
Notice I said that to play with a "short" roll you have to be willing to move down if you have a bad streak. If you have a 20-30 buyin roll and have a really bad downswing, you simply arent going to stick around at that level. It wouldnt make sense to "ride out" [I put this in quotes because its sort of skewing what a downswing actually is, it isn't something you can actively be _in_, phrasing it this way simply makes it easier for discussion purposes] a 20 buyin swing with a 25 buyin roll, you would obviously move down way before that point.
Requiring 50 buyins for 1/2 is just costing yourself a ton of money. If you arent worried about that AND the money at stake does affect how you play [sort of a weird combo when you think about it], then sure stick around until you get comfortable. But suggesting that 50 buyins is a minimum standard is just way too conservative.
At these stakes those swings do happen, but they just arent going to happen regularly and if they do then you have big problems in your game. From my observations, a bigger minimum roll is required at 3/6 and up. Those seem to be the stakes where huge swings happen often, even to the better players; however, at the lower stakes this just isnt as much an issue. Aba has even said that at 300/600 he doesnt think you should keep more than a 20buyin roll, take that for what its worth.
So yea, at 3/6 and 5/10 50 buyins is a good idea, at anything lower though, it is just costing you money.
Also, can somebody tell me why they are specifying different requirements for 8tabling as opposed to 4tabling? I can see it being needed when you are massively multitabling [over 8 IMO] simply because you have so much money in play that you would need to extra to stay topped off, etc. not because of any increasae in variance. I just dont see this as having much affect when you are 8tabling or less though.
I agree with this a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genitruc
Except for the fact that there is no way your nitty game could cause a 50 buyin swing :lol: .
I started taking shots at 1/2 at $5,000 and plan to dabble in 2/4 at $10,000. I play pretty nitty though (17/14.) I didn't move 100% to 1/2 until I had about 6 or 7 grand. That was just me getting comfortable with the game though, not a "rule" or anything.
I think it's ideal to take shots ASAP (ie you can "spare" 1-2 buyins), but I end up being a nit anyway and wait til I am at least fully comfortable with the money on the previous level and have 30ish buy ins.
I think someone should PM Ravageur and ask him about this.
He started playing cash before me. Neither one of us were well-versed in the finer points of poker (i.e. BR management).
I can remember him sitting with a 3.2k stack at an nl600 table when his total roll was less than 7k lol.
...One time I played 4 NL200 tables and 2 NL400 tables with a BR of about $3000....
...yeah that did not end too well :shock:
But I agree with andy-akb that 8-tabling does not change much in terms of having a higher BR.
IMHO variance is higher while playing less tables and making those "hero" marginal calls. I try and play a straight forward game and probably fold the best hand more often than I should....but it makes for much lower variance.
Maybe one day I will cut back to 4 tables again and stop playing so nitty.
BecauseQuote:
Originally Posted by andy-akb
-more tables = smaller winrate = greater chance of a big downswing.
-if you go on tilt (which everyone does more or less often) you burn through money a lot faster when playing 8 tables.
JL, I would listen to Renton if I were you, as he has probably played more hands 8-tabling than everyone else in this thread put together and has a much better understanding of bankroll management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
But don't forget that im not a very big winner in any of my games. If u are a prodigious poker player, you will rarely if ever have any huge downswings, and therefore not need as big of a bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by THaC
Your modesty is refreshing, but JL seems to think that playing like a nit and eking out a relatively small winrate at 8 tables will keep him from having much variance and he is mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
We've been over this in the LHE forums countless times.
Think of it this way -- youre flipping a loaded coin in which you have a 51% edge and you put $5 on heads. It comes up tails once in a while, sometimes 4 times in a row, sometimes 10 times in a row, but given enough time you'll come out ahead because its a loaded coin.
Now youre flipping 8 of the loaded coins at a time. Most of the times the good and the bad will cancel each other out and leave you with a little up or exactly even. But every once in a while you'll throw a lot more tails than heads and be paying a larger sum.
Hopefully you can see why you need a larger bankroll for the latter game than the former.
I don't see why, can you explain? Seems to me you'd have the same likelihood of flipping 8 tails at a time in the second game and flipping 8 tails in a row in the first game.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Yeah exactly. Playing more tables actually reduces variance because you reach the longterm faster so to speak. Only problem is ofcourse in practice if you play worse or tilt then your -EV play will be embelished by more tables..Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
^^ what he said. Plus you'll get hurt more when your internet connection goes down or that damned computer crashes again, because you'll (statistically)time out in more big pots when it happens.
Renton, i remember a post where u showed expected downswing graph, mind posting it?
you people make this too complicated.
if you can beat .5/1, then move up to 1/2 with 20-25 buyins. if you lose some, then drop back down. easy.
I think you can move up more quickly and with a smaller bankroll if you play fewer tables. Simply put, when you are moving up you should concentrate on getting comfortable with the new level before getting to your maximum number of tables. There are some distinct advantages to this:
1. Playing fewer tables allows you to exercise better table/seat selection.
2. Playing fewer tables allows you to pay more attention to each table. This enables you to get good reads more quickly.
3. Playing fewer tables allows you more undistracted time to make each decision.
If you are worried about your hourly rate dropping because you are playing fewer tables, just cut your number of tables in half when doubling stakes. Assume that the advantage you gain from playing fewer tables will counteract the disadvantage from playing against a higher percentage of (presumably) skilled players. If this holds true, you will maintain your winrate.
Another technique for moving up is to play bigger towards the end of really good sessions. If you have a 10 buyin upswing one day, why not risk 2-4 of those buyins at the next highest stake? YMMV with this idea. It kind of depends on your personality.
If you only had a $60 bankroll which game would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Or your bankroll is too small to weather a big but relatively infrequent drop, safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're gonna have a 100-flip downswing it doesn't matter if you flip 1 at a time or 5 at a time. You're not gonna have more of your 60$ left in the middle of that swing regardless.
Yes your odds of losing 100 flips in a row are the same in the first game or in the second game. This is why you should be properly bankrolled for both. But to say that the same bankroll is required for the first and for the second is foolish.
Game one: 1 flip either win 5 or lose 5 with an average of +1%
Game two: 1 flip you have an enormous range of things that could happen. From -$40 to +$40 with an average of +1%
So again taking my $60 bankroll example. Would you rather play one game over the other? And if so, doesnt that prove the point that you want more money behind you for the other game?
Yeah agreed but I think the main reason here is that your play probably isn't +EV yet when you move up, because you have to get used to the different $ amount, different playstyle, different regulars, etc. So you can do stuff like less tables, buying in shorter, playing tighter etc to get used to it, and load up more tables when you get comfy your play is +EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by koolmoe
The difference is mostly an illusion I think. In the first example, you're not gonna stop playing after 1 flip right? If you keep playing, you'll reach the exact same results as game two, only it'll take you a lot longer.Quote:
Game one: 1 flip either win 5 or lose 5 with an average of +1%
Game two: 1 flip you have an enormous range of things that could happen. From -$40 to +$40 with an average of +1%
Interesting is when I compare my approach to poker (I'm 100% FTR schooled) to some of my friends. They basically play on $100-$200 rolls, and either bust (often) or go on a streak and run it up to $1000+. When they bust, they'll redeposit from earlier winnings, borrow, work for a few days, etc. When they win, they'll cash out most and pay the rent, buy a new TV or laptop, etc.
This one guy I find particularly crazy. He basically plays 50NL HU and $10+ MTTs. His variance is, needless to say, insane. It's not uncommon that he'll call me and be like "so two days ago I made it up to $1500 and cashed out $500 and then I blew my remaining $500 so I redeposited $200 and I ran it up to $1000 and then I went bust again (etc)"
Or conversations are of this nature:
him: man wtf are u playing 20NL??
me: I have a $300 roll atm, can't play 50NL with that..
him: but even if u win u only win peanuts money, your and mine skill is too great to play peanuts stakes like that! I want a chance to make $1000+ a day otherwise it's not worth my trouble
me: but you'll bust so often
him: yeah I've busted so often I lost count
me: see that's the difference, I might not win as much as you on a good day, but I've basically never lost or gone bust ever in my life, it's a -granted, small - but steady upward grind.
him: pff..
You can argue which is better but these guys have been living off of mostly poker for the past 4 years..
Granted, but the whole redeposit thing brings the bankroll into question. If our willing to redeposit, what is your true bankroll. I have a freind who plays tourneys on the weekends. he deposits$50 or $100 and plays a couple $20's or a $33's and withdraws most nights. What's his true bankroll? Who knows. It's how much he's allowing himself to lose. There is no guidline. But they don't play under the same rules as us. they are playing poker for fun, but Entertainment fun, not No deposit, no bust fun.
Yeah I know the BR issue is tricky when you factor in redeposits, but when I tell him to stop cashing out once he gets somewhat of a BR going, he tells me he has to cash out and preferably spend it right away because if it sits in his BR (and to a lesser extent in his bank account) he'll blow it anyway. I know he once had a $6k roll and busted it in one dark tilty day. I guess his super variance playstyle makes tilt issues that much more of a problem so he might be right.
I have to hand it to him one thing though, doing it like this works wonders on motivation and concentration. Him playing $10 rebuys, $25 freeze-outs and $50 HU cash on a $200 online roll will bring out the A game much more than what I do. Basically I started playing again not too long ago with $130. Ran it up to $409 at 10NL, I'm at $600 now on 20NL but it's far from riveting and I seem to be playing less and less hands every day, often doing other things while playing etc..
So how come you're still getting it wrong then? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Yet another reason not to go near minbet poker...
EL OH EL ROFLMAO. Hey, next time you feel like imparting your wisdom, don't waste your time.
drama!Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
I noticed a similar thing when I bonus whored a lot- at the sites where I put in like 3 buyins just to get the bonus and cash out, I played better, more focused (not scared really, just more concentrated) because if I lost it I was busto for that site...now I still keep a "short" roll of 5-10 buyins on my main site (the rest is in the bank), and think it helps, sort of feeling on the edge of losing my "roll" (plus is good in case some more crazy shit happens in the US and $ get frozen online).Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvance
- Standard deviation (basically variance) increases as a multiple of the square root of the number of tables you are playing.
- Winrate increases as a multiple of the number of tables you are playing.
Eg. if you play 4 tables, your SD will double, but your win rate will quadruple.
I suck at maths, but it seems to me if these statements are true, the more tables you play the less likely you are to have a serious downswing. Your variance will increase, but your winrate will increase faster. Play enough tables and your winrate will be greater than your variance, so you will rarely have a sizeable downswing.
Of course, the two original statements assume that each table is played completely independently of each other, which will not be the case due to human factors like tilt, not getting as good reads etc. It's still something to take into account with bankroll management.
this cannot be. Please explain further.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingPenguin
I can't explain properly, as I didn't derive this myself, but have seen it stated on similar threads. I think it's talking about SD/hr rather than SD/100, if that's what you mean. Nothing should change per hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
penguin: SD/hour will decrease with more tables, because your sample size has increased. SD/100 hands will remain constant.
Two reasons, as I see it, why you should have a slightly bigger bankroll if you multitable say 6+ tables:
1) Although the risk is small, you could feasibly lose a buyin plus on each table you're playing in one session - while this won't happen very often, it's vastly more likely that you'll lose a significant portion of your roll 8-tabling than 4-tabling because there's more of your roll out there to lose.
2) Unless you can say honestly that your winrate at 8 tables is the same as at 4 tables - which personally I doubt - then your average winrate per hand will be smaller and your downswings will therefore be deeper because you have less skill-won hands to counter these effects.
I agree. This is the guideline what I follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
That is basically what I have been doing since I started playing poker, but apparently it is wrong to 8-table 1/2 without $10,000, and it is "suicidal" to do that with $5,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vihtavuori
no your winrate isnt going to quadruple unless you were already paying only as much attention playing 1 table as you would to a table if you were playing 3 others at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingPenguin
if u play more tables your winrate will probably go down and that will have bigger swings, more variance. the good thing is that you can get through a downswing a lot faster.
8 tabling 1/2 with 5k is uh...Quote:
Originally Posted by JL
$1600 ON THE TABLES. Thats a full 1/3rd of your roll at risk at any one time. That will NEVER be good bankroll practice, even if its extremely unlikely for you to lose them all at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Some people have a really hard time admitting to themselves they need to drop stakes because they 1) are playing poorly and 2) they can't beat the game. Thus, they continue to risk too much every time and hence have a higher likelihood of going bust.
Then there are others who have a massive bankroll compared to the stakes they are playing (*cough*) and for other reasons feel that they should have a higher bankroll than is *required.*
Personally, I agree with teh renton (and euph) on this one, that if you are going to 8 table 99 days out of 100 you may not lose that much. But, it only takes one really bad day/downswing to wipe you out. If I followed the 25 buyin rule I woulda gone broke when I dropped 35 buyins at 200.
As an aside: LHE was the frontrunner for many of the NL concepts and lines used today, its just that most NL players don't realize this. FWIW, I'd much rather play in the best 30/60 LHE game I can find than the NL equivalent, even if I had the skill to win at that NL equivalent.
It is, however, the same likelihood of playing a single table and being stacked on each of eight consecutive hands. If you intend to rebuy each time you are stacked, the risk is identical (you effectively have a full 1/3rd of your bankroll at risk at any one time). If you do not intend to rebuy each time then it is a different matter, but in that case I would argue that you're not counting your bankroll correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
If the flip is $5, I would do 8 flips at a time with $100 which would be 20 buyins. I dont know if I read over something, but why are we talking abouut $60? Also, why are we using a coinflip? I would hope that while playing you arent constantly getting into a situation where you are all in on a coinflip, especially at all 8 tables at the same time. So maybe the two choices should be flip 1 coin every 16 seconds or 1 coin every 2 seconds and also that you have free control over the size of the wager, so you can make it say $2.50 if you lose a few in a row. Id easily do the second option and would actually _prefer_ that and there is nothing foolish about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
I dont think this is very accurate, but I could be wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by flyingPenguin
The first point is the only one I agree with in this thread and I stated it before, but I dont necessarily agree with it for the same reasons. When you are 8+ tabling you are going to have a higher percentage of your roll out there and if you say get 300BB deep on a couple tables and stacked at a few others, you arent going to have much headroom to reload even if you arent really down any money and could be up. Its a practical reason for a bigger bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by biondino
Also, your winrate will be lower at 8 tables than at 4, but that isnt the only factor that goes into your variance, standard deviation is what we should be looking at as well. Unless I have a completely backwards understanding of this, your SD will almost always be lower with the more tables you play because you simply wont be able to play as LAGG witht he extra tables [there are obvious exceptions to this].
1/3 of your roll will not be at risk at any one time, you will never be playing for stacks at every single table at once. Its the same as I said in response earlier, you are not putting 8x the money at risk at one time, you are just putting the same about at risk 8x faster than you would at 1 table. There is no reason this is bad bankroll practice, if you are willing to move down then there is absolutely no problem with this at any stakes. Yea, at the higher stakes you will be moving up and down all the time and it wouldnt make much sense to actually do, but just because it wouldnt be the most efficient BR management at those stakes doesnt mean it would be poor BR management, and at 1/2 it would be more than fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Simply because some people have leaks in self control doesnt mean that the minimum amount required to be bankrolled for a level should be raised. A responsible player should be willing and able to move down if the swings warrant it, that is ASSUMED when we are discussing BR requirements. We arent discussing the requirements for a player with no control who will mindlessly grind out loss after loss without moving down, we are talking about sensible players here, any other discussion is pointless. Taking the willingness into consideration into mind essentially negates your first 2 points as they lead to non-sequitur conclusions. If you let 1 day wipe you out, then you shouldnt be playing poker. It really is that simple. And if you are 8tabling 100 days, 1 day would only wipe you out if you didnt move down and never made a profit any of those other days. Again, with your comment that "If I followed the 25 buyin rule I woulda gone broke when I dropped 35 buyins at 200" you are completely ruling out any rationality in yourself and in any player following those "rules." If you had a 25 [or even 20] buyin roll, you wouldnt stay there until your account=$0, you would move down. 35 buyin swings are not common at all, I dropped like 15 buyins and I sucked during most of it [not saying Im amazing now]. Most players will never see a swing of that nature and I would be very very surprised if something like that were attributed solely to variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by elipsesjeff
You can stop and figure out whats wrong far easier with 8 consecutive hands in a row than 8 hands at the same time. Yes, mathematically they are identical. Realistically, you should have more money behind you 8 tabling.
For instance one tabling you can probably get by with 15 buyins, if and only if youre willing to move down at the first sign of trouble. Playing 8 tables with 15 buyins would be suicidal. But youre telling me theyre identical. Mathematically yes your odds of busting 8 hands at a time are identical to busting 8 hands in a row -- but if youre one tabling on a short roll, you'll never see hand 2.
Mathematically the same, realistically very, very different.
Andy, the point of a bankroll is to allow you to play the SAME STAKE through "normal" variance. Otherwise we could play on 5 buyins and just move down every time something went wrong, right?
That's why I added the caveat about bankroll definition. I'd argue that you don't really have a bankroll of 15 buy-ins if you're intending to move down at the first sign of trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
If 10-15 buyin swings are possible for even the best players who are long term winners at their stake - you certainly should not play 8 tables of that stake unless you have serious bank behind you. At 15 buyins you risk going bust simply on variance alone and through no fault of your own. At 20 buyins, if you hit a downswing you'll have 5 buyins left to play with. Therefore you will have to drop down in stakes, through absolutely no fault of your own. Youre still playing winning poker just running very badly.
So the 5k example for 200NL is 25 buyins. You lose 10 through the course of normal variance. Can you keep playing? Well, no. You cannot, you only have 15 buyins left - 3k. You need to move down to 100NL through absolutely no fault of your own. Now your hourly rate suffers until you can get back to your stakes through absolutely no fault of your own.
The point of a bankroll is to avoid that problem.
You can decide for yourself where that comfort zone is. For a professional player, I wouldnt touch 8 tabling without 40-50 buyins.
FYP.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
It's not about going broke either. BR management is also about not having a large portion of your roll in play. Everyone has seen the massive downswings and / or variance you can see when first moving up to a new stake. The different amount of money being tossed around, not to mention the style of plays, makes moving to a new stake very stressful on player and BR. Unless your a maniac and have no respect for money, throwing around 1/3 of your BR at any time is not a one time, it's ok, sort of thinking. Someone playing like this will do it at every level and also think while It's only 33%, will also think, meh it's only 45%, 50%. what's the line in the sand. BR recommendations are the line in the sand. How can anyone call off 200BB's on more than one table if your BR is 1/3 in play. You will not play your game, and you will not win, without severe luck. The whole point of BR management is to keep you from dealing with inevitable variance, some of which you could never imagine. Only the players that have not had this 20+ buy in swing kick them in the head would think it's ok to disregard the recommendations that others have said here.
Thats a meaningless statement in this context. Maybe I have a 400k a year job and I can reload at will, but that doesnt help us discuss this problem at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jo
Absolutely right on this account. When moving up to say, $100NL from $50NL, you will have, under standard recommendations, 20 buyins. $2k, which is actually 40 buy ins at $50NL by the time you move up. If you only give yourself 4 buy ins to succeed $400, before moving down, you will actually be moving down to a $1600 BR. 32 buy ins at $50NL actually over rolled for that stake. So moving down will not have the same requirements as moving up, and will require a whole other thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jo
how is this thread so long???
what happened to moving up via a transition process, i.e. 2 tables of 50NL and 2 tables of 100NL? why do we have to move up at precisely 20 buyins or 30 or whatever the number? why isn't 28 or 29.95 good enough?
all the bankroll serves is a cushion. as long as that cushion is big enough for each individual player's standards, that's good enough. it's your own problem if you bust because you didn't set your standards high enough.
And at 200nl and under [I dont have experience at 400nl and up] you will not need more than 20 buyisn to handle normal variance. What Jeff talks about is not normal variance. What I went through in October is not normal variance. what Renton went through is not normal variance. We all have had HUGE swings, and I dont think any of us would say those were all because of variance and even while playing with a lot of leaks a 15 buyin swing at these stakes IS rare, even 10 buyin swings are fairly rare. Remember I said requirements obviously change as the stakes get higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by euphoricism
I think u may be underestimating. If u are a only a small winner in your games (small being around 1-3ptbb/100), you will swing huge. 10+ buyin swings will pretty much be commonplace for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy-akb
here's an interesting read for a lot of you:
"For those who don't think 30+ BI swings are a reality..."
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&fpart=1&vc=1
And the point being, you won't lose them all at once. But 2 for every one you win is not uncommom, sort of the old 1 step forward two steps back. and if you get caught up in thinking" i'm a $xxxNL player and don't move down when times are right, Busto, without proper BR management
Sick link, hyper. Ty.
That was the one I wanted Renton to post. Yeah it's sick, you can get huge downswings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
This is in response to both this post and the one from Renton quoted above. I read that thread when it was first posted and still disagree with how people are interpreting it. If you put in a very modest winrate of 2ptbb/100 and a high SD of 60, you will find the graphs are very erratic and that yes, over 100k hand samples there are almost always several 10 buyin downswing and very often a bigger one. However, how does this instantly mean that we need a bigger bankroll? For those graphs to support your argument that you need a much larger roll than 20 buyins at the smaller stakes you would need to be withdrawing all of your profit over that period. The only time where our bankroll would be in danger is if we had one of those swings which happen a couple of times over 100k hands right from the very start. With that marginal of a winrate AND that high of a SD there are definitely some graphs that have that 20 buyin drop right at the beginning but from the time I spent with that file [admitedly not a lot] it doesnt seem to be close to the majority of them. Some will say that the fact that a proven winner _could_ lose their roll due to variance is reason enough to have higher BR requirements, but I would disagree. At the small stakes games [200nl and under] you should be able to beat them with a much bigger winrate than 2ptbb/100 and also a lower SD, if you dont then there is a lot of room for improvement in your game. Im not trying to come off as some great player, because Im not and I know that there is still a lot of room for improvement in my game. Regardless, If, say, 33% of the time that a player with a marginal winrate needs to drop back down to a lower level to rebuild and work on their game, why is that bad? I had to do that several times and Im sure most players [excluding aba] did as well. Does this mean that I didnt have proper bankroll management? No, it means I needed to work on my game. Bankroll requirements, as has been said by people on "both sides" of the argument, are to ensure a comfortable buffer through the course of regular variance _not_ protect a marginal winner from having to move down and work on their game.Quote:
Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi
Simply put, keeping a huge roll at small [and even at mid stakes, generally speaking] is only going to retard your growth as a player. At the higher stakes where those winrates are not considered as marginal, its definitely a good idea to have a "big" [relatively speaking] roll, but at the lower stakes it only serves to protect your [definitely not saying anybody in particular] ego from facing the fact that your game needs to improve.
I dont really disagree with this at all and think this is what people are over looking. Just because a winning player may have to move down does not mean they are not properly rolled, it just means they have some common sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms
Yea, you can keep refreshing it to find some sick downswings, but you can also find some huge upswings. I mean, I found one where a -3ptbb player was up 80buyins after 100k hands, does that mean we need to change the BR requirements and make them even lower? Again, just because you can find a graph that seems to support your argument or your point does not mean that everything is settled. The excel spreadsheet shows what is possible, nobody is doubting what is possible we are talking about what is _likely_ and people seem to be forgetting that [This wasnt even really in response to you, I just sort of went off on a tangent].Quote:
Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan
EDIT: LOL, words.
so what are you standards? what is the "majority" for when you should increase your bankroll? if your winrate and variance is so and so, and you get a 10BI downswing at the beginning for 1 out of 10 simulations, is that enough that you should increase your bankroll of X buyins? what happens when you simulate 1 in 5 simulations for a 10BI downswing at the beginning?Quote:
Originally Posted by andy-akb
really, all bankroll management does is protect you "with 95% confidence" blah blah blah. even with that, 1 in 20 will fail. from your point of view, it appears that at low stakes you're fine with a 80% confidence, and that's ok. others prefer 99%, which is where this 50 BI bankroll recommendation is from.
it really comes down to what you're comfortable with. it doesn't matter what others tell you. if you don't feel comfortable playing with a 20 BI bankroll, it's going to affect your play. if you're TOO comfortable, that will affect your play too.