Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I just don't understand why people are such nits when it comes to bankroll management.

Obviously it's important to have a safety factor so that you don't go broke. But, you don't not need huge rolls to take shots or move up.

Personally, I never had more than 50 buy-ins for any stakes until I reached the $55s. I was usually betweent 20-30 and taking shots at higher stakes in there.

I'm still not hugely rolled for the stakes I play. Between 50-75 buyins and I've never ever been close to busto.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Meh, 50 is plenty for people who are smart about it and know when to move down and when to take shots. One hundred buyins is pretty formulaic/math based and doesn't take into consideration the common sense factor of the player...

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he meant 90$ downswing, as for 15 buy-ins

[/ QUOTE ]

No, 90 buy-ins. A 15 buy-in downswing was the start of a normal day. On one memorable day in September, I was called the first time I pushed in the first 15 tournies, and lost every one of them, 12, as I recall, with the best hand.

You can talk all you want about ICM and putting people on ranges, but eventually you have to push, and when I push, I get called, and when I get called, I lose. I am continually amazed at how people can consistently win all-ins regardless of the cards going in, but that appears to be what's required to be a winning player.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2...aygraphkm5.png

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Oh, my bad then ! Didn't think it was that bad actually

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

A 90 buyin downswing would be brutal. However, I'm a little bit skeptical that it can happen purely by variance. I'm not a statistician but I can do a few things with stats, and I suspect 90 buyins just on random fluctuations would be way way way way off into the left tail of the normal curve. Like, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

Yeah, some bad play right there.
I mean, we're talking a 3000 tournies losing strek here.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, some bad play right there.
I mean, we're talking a 3000 tournies losing strek here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you possibly know that? Did you look at my HHs? Several people have, and none of them has identified any glaring errors. One actually wrote back and said, "don't just send the HHs where you got called the first time you pushed, then lost, send some where you actually played." So I had to search to find some of those to send him.

Over 5K 16s, 39.54% of all my PF pushes were called. What kind of range to I put people on to avoid that? When called, I lost 54.27%. What kind of skill level is required to change that?

We've been through this before, and I'm not going to change any minds, so believe whatever you like.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

when you hit insane variance its super easy to play slightly bad tighten up to much make one extra call every 20 sNGs. i had a 100 buy in down swing however im not the greatest SNG player. ive ran over 15 roi for 1k sNGs on full tilt a few times.

over the 9k ive played im only like 3-4 roi which sucks.

In short i play a ton of SNGs i suck run hot run bad

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

You lose over 3000 SNGs (big time, I might add), you play poorly.
Sorry, but either you were constantly tilting, or you aren't as good as you think you are.

Over 5k 16s your pushes won't be called significantly more often than would anyone else at that level. That is, unless all the mongtards of the 16s formed a conspiracy to start spite calling you.

Also, I have no idea of what a good number of preflop all-ins won % is, but I have a feeling you are pushing too wide. Maybe that's your major leak.

Choose to blame it all on the worst luck since that lorry driver guy from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or choose to improve.
I really don't care.

Re: Moving Up In Stakes
 

I don't have your hand histories, guth, so i can't comment on your play, but statistically, i think it's very unlikely that a 90BI downswing is just variance. It may have started with a really brutal downswing of just variance, maybe 25BI's or 30BI's, after which you subconciously changed your game and did not play the same way. It's not an accusation at you, because 95% of players would do the same thing imo if they hit a brutal strech. But if i had the stats on the overall variance and stuff of SnG tournaments, i suspect that a solid winner with maybe 8% ROI would be very very very unlikely to ever run that bad.