an aggro bankroll management system..how high is the risk of ruin?

[SilentNoise]

at the moment im doing my regular grind of moving up every 50buyins on stars, and soon to be fulltilt (rakeback $$$) as soon as you can read the player names in shrunk down resized windows instead of it being all unclear and blurry. but i heard the games on party were really good.

i had 400$ lying around on my neteller so i thought id have a go of building a bankroll from scratch on party just during free time. My system is this.

- Deposit 400$, = 4buyins at 100NL
- Lose 1 buyin, you got 300$, move down to 50NL where you now have 6buyins, move back up to 100NL when you have 400$ again.
- So basically...move up every 4buyins, move down everytime you lose 1buyin.

So far ive managed to get up to 7buyins at 200NL, but i lost it all on badbeats/coolers and am down to 300$ and will now go back to 50NL until i have 400$ again. Just a little experiment. All i gotta do is run good eventually and ill be playing pretty big in no time.

What is the ROR on this kinda system? Aslong as you keep moving down it seems like you should never go broke..

what you think?

[Fiksdal]

LOL... with this bankroll you should be playing 10NL dude

[PokerSoccer]

y here?

[Paul B.]

shortstack 10/20 nl

[Suigin406]

move down...it's not a good thing when ur BR affects ur play...and it seems ur changing limits often...

[PokerSoccer]

[ QUOTE ]
shortstack 10/20 nl

[/ QUOTE ]
BINGO!

[Avocado]

[ QUOTE ]
Aslong as you keep moving down it seems like you should never go broke..

[/ QUOTE ]

i like this

[SilentNoise]

Its quite funny how people dont read posts before responding.

[ QUOTE ]
LOL... with this bankroll you should be playing 10NL dude

[/ QUOTE ]

400$ isn't my whole pokerbankroll. It is the amount i have deposited on party as an experiment to try and reach high limit games very quickly while risking only 400$. my normal game is 200nl, and i am strictly moving up every time i have 50buyins for the next level. i am soon going to be playing 400nl.


[ QUOTE ]
y here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked here because i figured the variance forum might have some idea on the likelihood of the variance destroying the 400$ bankroll...ie. risk of ruin.

[ QUOTE ]
shortstack 10/20 nl

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be a joke, but the reason I am not doing this is because it basically puts the whole 400$ bankroll at risk in one hand. This isnt the point of "bankroll management"(see topic title). By moving up every 4 buyins and moving down when you lose 1, you now have 6buyins for the level below which means your bankroll has some kind of tolerance for setup/badbeat type hands, and allows you to have a few more shots before moving down another level in limits.

[ QUOTE ]
move down...it's not a good thing when ur BR affects ur play...and it seems ur changing limits often...

[/ QUOTE ]


At one point in my original post did i see that my play is being affected? And yes, it does seem as if i am changing limits often...that is the entire point of this experiment...to take shots at the high stakes quickly, and if i run bad and lose a buyin, rebuild at lower stakes and take another shot quickly, then run good move up move up ...then m ove down one limit etc etc. Hence the topic title "aggressive bankroll management" ie..changing limits quickly.


[ QUOTE ]
i like this

[/ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm is often lost in message boards. Could you seriously tell me if you do or dont like this please. Obviously when i say "never go broke"...that is an exaggeration. A more accurate thing to say would be "it seems like the likelihood of going broke is relatively low". I dont know how high/low ....hence the reason I am created this thread ..to ask the risk of ruin. I guess you need some more information so lets say:

You have an SD/100 of 40.
At every limit (obviously unrealisitc since your winrate will drop from limit to limit) you have a winrate of 5ptbb/100.

Whats my ROR? I know this is a very aggro system. This is purely an experiment...and no point wouold i have riskmy whole bankroll on such an aggressive system. I am VERY conservative with my br management at the moment, and i am envious of these people who move up/down every 20buyins and how fast they can get to high limits like Baluga etc. So it hought id create a seperate bankroll from scratch on party INDEPENDANT OF MY CURRENT POKER BANKROLL ON POKERSTARS..as an experiment to see how far i can get.

Anyway...thx(!) for the extremely useful replies so far.

[lucky_mf]

I have done the same thing when funding an account except I put in $500 ininitially, only 3 table (initially), and won't play any lower than 100NL. Other times I've just started with $1000 and gone right to 200NL. Also - I have no aspirations to keep moving up so I'm really just trying to get a reasonable role for 200NL (with perhaps one 400NL table out of 4 open if the game looks good). Sometimes it doesn't work (I bust out at the 100NL level), but usually it does. I take this approach because it is a challenge and I don't play very well any lower than 100NL.

Lucky

[schwah]

if you strictly stick with the system and never play a limit you have less than 3 buyins for your ROR is basically 0 (not quite since you can't move down infinitely, eventually you'll reach the lowest stakes

there are a few problems tho, first you might be forced to move down several levels in a short time which isn't fun.. also you can't really multitable without taking on a much higher ROR

[Mrage]

If you are already rolled for 200nl or 400nl, there's no reason to move down, it's just a question of moving money around. It doesn't matter how much you have on this site or that site, it's about the aggregate sum of your bankroll.

If you're doing it as an experiment just to see if you can, then great, go for it, but yes it's obviously very risky.

[Avocado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aslong as you keep moving down it seems like you should never go broke..

[/ QUOTE ] i like this

[/ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm is often lost in message boards. Could you seriously tell me if you do or dont like this please. Obviously when i say "never go broke"...that is an exaggeration. A more accurate thing to say would be "it seems like the likelihood of going broke is relatively low". I dont know how high/low ....hence the reason I am created this thread ..to ask the risk of ruin.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not being sarcastic, i just lol'ed at the "keep moving down" + "never go broke" sentence

actually i like yout plan, and hope you keep us updated

and obv. the risk of ruin is 50%: it just happen or it doesn't

[Joymachine21]

Am i lost or is this serious business going on in BBV. I feel dirty

[johnnyrocket]

well this is ur classic example of someone not understanding bankroll management, no matter what if u do this u will go broke to a simple bad streak that is bound to happen. This is why this method isnt used otherwise everyone would use it if luck was no factor.

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
well this is ur classic example of someone not understanding bankroll management, no matter what if u do this u will go broke to a simple bad streak that is bound to happen. This is why this method isnt used otherwise everyone would use it if luck was no factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Short stack 10-20 NL is much less high variance. Just dont go broke on anything but a set, double up once, and move up. Variance very low because you can only busto once. SIMPLE.

--GA

[supafrey]

[ QUOTE ]
Am i lost or is this serious business going on in BBV. I feel dirty

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're just lost.

[secader2]

[ QUOTE ]
y here?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I asked here because i figured the variance forum might have some idea on the likelihood of the variance destroying the 400$ bankroll...ie. risk of ruin.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahaahah

[Joymachine21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am i lost or is this serious business going on in BBV. I feel dirty

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're just lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you have no clue

[ArturiusX]

I used a similar bankroll system when I had a spare $600 in party. I just moved up aggressivly, since my main site was somewhere else it didn't really bother me if I 'busted out'.

I turned it into 7k or something /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SilentNoise]

[ QUOTE ]
well this is ur classic example of someone not understanding bankroll management, no matter what if u do this u will go broke to a simple bad streak that is bound to happen. This is why this method isnt used otherwise everyone would use it if luck was no factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand why you say i am not understand bankroll management. surely the bigger your bankroll the less your risk of ruin as long as you keep moving down. When you say this method isnt used...i believe it is used..but people do it with 20 or so buyins normally, for the reason that i can only believe is to LOWER their risk of ruin.

how is the system of 4buyins not a way of managing your bankroll?

perhaps this is more suited to the probability forum.

[holyfield5]

its pretty stupid imo, the time you lose when you go up to play for a limit with ONLY 1 buyin to spare and have to inevitably drop down and grind longer at a lower stake.

basically 1 BI swing down will be unavoidable, you will have to have a bigger cushion or you wont "stick" in the higher limit very often without multiple shots at it.

you could grind out a little longer, take a better shot with more chance of success and profit just as fast with less risk.

[SilentNoise]

whats wrong with only managing to stay there after multiple shots? I remember with my actual bankroll when i was moving from 100NL --> 200NL i got killed many times,had to rebuild a bit and try again, got killed repeat and try ...on my 5th attempt i managed to run good and stay there for good.

[MotorBoatingSOB]

Here's the problem. There is a very big difference between doing this with 20 buyins and with 4 buyins. If you do this with 20 buyins (and move down after you lose 10 at each level), you can handle AT LEAST a 20 buyin downswing over all levels. If you are at the lowest level and you can't move down, you can handle a 20 buyin downswing. If you are at the next lowest level, a 30 buyin downswing, etc. This is an OK system because it is somewhat unlikely for a winning player to experience a 30, 40, 50, whatever buyin downswing.

Now we'll look at your system. At the lowest level, you can handle a 6-buyin downswing. At the next lowest, 7. Then 8, then 9, etc. Now suppose you are awesome and build your way up to 2000nl, which is the 9th lowest level. You can still only stand to lose 15 buyins before busto. This sort of downswing is not just kind of likely, it's almost inevitable. Do you see the problem now?

[/serious business]

[SilentNoise]

yea i see the problem. basically you gotta run good before you run bad.

[pokerchap]

lol, all you have to do is min buy and magically you have 4 buy ins when you would really only have 1max. that is what you should do. 4 table min buy and move up when you have 1 max.

[feesjah]

there is no ROR if you move down with only 3 buyins. at the lowest levels its almost impossible to go broke with those donks.

[SretiCentV]

this will never work unless you NEVER tilt. If you are playing nl100 and lose set over rivered set on the first hand, you almost certainly will say "[censored] it I'm gonna rebuy and crush this guy". Worse yet when it happens twice in a row etc

[Bakes]

I do this all the time. Start with a small amount, take it to 100 or 200 and just run it up. I am usually good for about 1200 or so, after that i lose focus and it becomes a bloodbath.

So if you are smart and play tight, you will hae success with this method moreoften than not.

[holyfield5]

[ QUOTE ]
I do this all the time. Start with a small amount, take it to 100 or 200 and just run it up. I am usually good for about 1200 or so, after that i lose focus and it becomes a bloodbath.

So if you are smart and play tight, you will hae success with this method moreoften than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys dont get it and i dont feel like trying to explain it

[venom007]

[ QUOTE ]
shortstack 10/20 nl

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be a joke, but the reason I am not doing this is because it basically puts the whole 400$ bankroll at risk in one hand. This isnt the point of "bankroll management"(see topic title).

O RLY? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[prodonkey]

I saw a guy with the coolest strategy earlier.. he sat at 25nl with 9$.. moved all in.. won the pot.. moved to 50nl with 16$ moved all in every hand till he ended up with like 24$. He then went and played a $20 hu sng and moved in every hand saying I've got to go so all in every hand. Ship it!

[Moonshine]

i did this last fall and make over 100k. same exact experiment actually

and the i lost it all

i'm mentally challenged