$27 bankroll
 

I currently have $27 in my poker stars account. What would be suitable for a bankroll of this amount. I was thinking of playing 1.10 sit and go turbos. 45man.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

$2NL if you're good. Any $1.10/$1.20 SNG and $1.75 18 mans would probably be best though.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

LOL no to 25NL 5NL at most and thats still only 5 buy ins.
Best bet might be to grind it to $100ish and try $10NL...

I am not sure but I would imagine the 45man tournaments are somewhat high variance. (complete guess)

basically grind the smallest stakes you can find

Re: $27 bankroll
 

I would start out playing the $1.20/45 and stay away from the turbos and cash. This gives you 22 buy-ins which should be more than enough to not go busto. Playing cash on Stars with a small bankroll can be tricky since the allowed buy-in is $5 for NL2 and $10 for NL5. A couple of bad moves and your roll is gone. I would switch from the SNG's to NL2 at about $50. Or you could try the $3.40 STT turbos.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

I agree with the 1.20/45's if you're comfortable playing those games. Really, whatever is your strongest suit, go with it. The 45 sngs do give you the most bang for your buck fwiw.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I currently have $27 in my poker stars account. What would be suitable for a bankroll of this amount. I was thinking of playing 1.10 sit and go turbos. 45man.

[/ QUOTE ]

What have you been playing to get it to that amount?

Re: $27 bankroll
 

Lol, so true, I never even stopped to wonder that one Doc

Re: $27 bankroll
 

Cash is viable. Buy in for $2 or less at NL2 - sure you don't really have sufficient buyins, but you don't really have the level of recommended buyins for anything.

I dislike anything with a 20% tournament fee, so I don't recommend 1.20 45s. 1.75 18 turbos seem okay, as do 1.10 turbos. Personal preference should guide you, none of these choices are terrible to grind at. I mean, if it suits you, you could chuck in some $1 and lower buyin large MTTs, though be warned of variance.

I'd personally go for NL2, I think it's more profitable and teaches you more about poker due to deeper stacked situations. If that's not your thing, I agree with your choice of $1.10 turbo 45s, due to having half the fee of 1.20s and being quicker (though this removes some of the learning aspect). There's no reason you can't mix them, for variety if nothing else.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I currently have $27 in my poker stars account. What would be suitable for a bankroll of this amount. I was thinking of playing 1.10 sit and go turbos. 45man.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are not a winning player, play whatever you think is fun.

If you win at some forms of poker but not others, you should stick to what you know. Don't try something new because someone else would be properly bankrolled. A bankroll does not give you skills.

If you are an expert at all forms of poker, I recommend playing NL with a $0.02 big blind. A good heuristic to use to compare games is

comfort = bankroll * win rate / (standard deviation^2).

In order to get the same 3.5 comfort level as you would have playing NL with a $0.02 big blnid with some relatively conservative statistics (winning $0.80/100, with a standard deviation of $2.50/100), you would need to have ROIs of 35% (std dev 1.5 buyins) and 120% (std dev 2.8 buy-ins) in the 9-player and 45-player SNGs, respectively. Maybe those are achievable if you don't multitable too much, but the figures for NL look much more conservative to me than the ones for the tournaments.

Actually, I see there are Omaha8 tournaments. Very high ROIs may be possible in those if you know how to play O8 well, much higher than the win rates in NLHE.

Most people prefer a comfort level from 2 to 4. You should definitely move down (e.g., to $0.02-$0.04 LHE) before your comfort level drops to 1/2 of your target.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

You should buy in for your entire bankroll in a 50nl or preferably a 100 nl game. Great bankroll management starts and ends with putting your entire roll at risk as a small stack in a big game. It will free you up to play great poker. Say yes. Yes.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

try the ferguson 1$ tournies on fulltilt

Re: $27 bankroll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I currently have $27 in my poker stars account. What would be suitable for a bankroll of this amount. I was thinking of playing 1.10 sit and go turbos. 45man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I Agree with Jsmith.. play 2NL holdem... I am not even a "real" holdem player and the competition there on pokerstars si so easy I can sit there with $5 and make $25 in profit in a sitting and this is with 2+2ers at the tables... every beginners game I pulled in +10 or more in a sitting but I was deepstacked. 2NL on PS is soft!!!!

The non 2+2ers often don't understand betting or raising... will call down or push in with weak kickers..

My method of NLH is different I tend to like playing suited connectors.. these are high reward hands because when you hit you get paid off by players who over value AK, AQ, and the like.

Keep in mind most of these $2NL players just look at their starting hand and fall in [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

Forgot to mention FTP $5NL is also super soft.. I played one night there to blow off steam from bad PLO session and made $5 into $50 stack. EASY... u can totally dominate if you find a table of clueless players soak it up...

Re: $27 bankroll
 

FTP doesnt have 5NL unless u mean the 3 dollar cap or something? and turning 5$ into 50$ is super lucky and not as easy as u say lol but ya everything else is true

Re: $27 bankroll
 

A decent low variance game is HU sngs.

Lucky

Re: $27 bankroll
 

hmm guess it was $10NL.. but I brought in $5.

Yeah I am not saying these are reasonable possibilities necessarily.. just my experience. I have limited NLH experience as I stated.

Re: $27 bankroll
 

I assume since u have money in your acct try the 500 dollar freeroll. 1st place is usally around 70 bux. Join the PPA and enter their freeroll too. it is 3000 guarantee and u get one free shot. 1st place is about 700 bux. I suggesttaking your roll to bodog and playing their beginner sngs. They pay top 5 and u can get away with 10 buyins IMO. They have 2,4,8 and 16 dollar buyins. Thats how I build my roll quick and play 3 per time

My recommendation as someone who started with a $5 bankroll....
 

I had a friend transfer me $5 and I just grinded it out at 2NLH (0.01/0.02) where I would buy in for the minimum $1 and then once I got up to $2 (double my buy in) I would quit the game. If I wanted to keep playing leave the table you are at with the $2, and go to another table and buy in for $1 so that you are basically playing on profit only. Since you have $27, I would use this strategy until you get to $75 and then take a 4-5 buy in shot at $0.02/$0.05 NLH where you buy in for 50xbb ($2.50) and if you happen to keep winning then move up once you have 30 buy ins for the next level and take another 4-5 buy in shot. If you happen to lose the 4-5 buy ins at a level drop back down and build up again until you have 30 buys ins for the next level. Once you get up to $60 you can also add in the $1.20 9 person sit n go's also....these are great bankroll builders...Patience will be key here but this is how you can build a bankroll without risking too much of it.

Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

Don't be afraid to stick to a stop/loss limit say a 2-3 buy in loss limit. (i.e. if your typical buy in for 0.01/0.02 is $1 once you lose 2-3 buy ins ($2-$3) then quit for the night). I initially stuck to a one buy in loss limit and as I built my bankroll up I increased the stop loss limit to 2-3 buy ins once I hit $40.

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

2 buyins!!?!?!
man youre a lucky mf.

Seriously I regularly drop 2/3 buy ins on people hitting some odd hand on the river.

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

2 buyins!!?!?!
man youre a lucky mf.

Seriously I regularly drop 2/3 buy ins on people hitting some odd hand on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I regularly drop 2/3 buy-ins also. The thing is I never had all my $ in play and when I was playing very short I always had $20 or $50 HU sngs running. For me the competition at this level of sng is very weak. I can usually win these things they don't take very long to play. If I lost money in a cash game over a period of time there was a good chance that I would have HU sngs profits to compensate. To make an analogy to investing - cash games were the risky part of my portfolio with a high return, while the HU sngs were the low variance low return part. I can't get the high return on the HU sngs because once I get to the $100 level my edge with respect to the other players decreases substantially.

Lucky

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you can win at a good rate somewhere you should be aggressive about taking shots. If you lose what you set aside for your shot, just drop back down and play where you know you can win. Rinse and repeat. There is nothing to be gained by grinding away at $10NL when you can beat it and have roll to take some shots. The experience of playing with better players and comfort you gain by playing at high stakes is more significant that any temporary loss in funds (as long as you don't completely busto).

Lucky

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

at one of my accounts i played an invite freroll that had little more price monies.
uhm, i came third and cashed 20 euros.
then i turned that to 50 euros in a week or so by playing sit n folds.
cashed out 50 euros and had 1 euro left.
Then i played nl5 w my hole roll obv.
The roll grew quiet fast and when my BR hit 50 euros i ran terrible, overplayed my hands couldn't fold to a c-bet and stuff.
I kinda had the "fps" syndrome because most of the players were so bad at this level. (maybe me two) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Well after I past the 50 number my next problem was getting my BR over 100.
Next problem was 150 and now im at the 200 mark.
Kinda feels ridic with all these numbers, I guess my next problem is 250 and 300 and so on.
But when I reach 200 again, I will move up to nl10 and try that level again.

I think If you play solid tight aggressive at these micro levels its very profitable in the long run.
Im not saying that 100 euros is big money or 200 whatever.
And I could really afford to gamble with my roll.
But I really think that I can manage to take my roll from 1 euro up to whatever.
My only problem is tilting and thats something I need to work on.

So If I were you #1 I would grind nl2 and set up BR requirements at each level, a floor and a roof.

It would be sweet though to do it like Lucky_Mf.
good luck

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should also keep in mind that bankroll doesn't mean the same for everyone. If you just bet that you can turn x amount into y in a specific time. X is not your bankroll. You can always reload with the rest of what really is you bankroll...

The situation that is described here sounds a little like that. Additionally you could be in other situations where "aggressive bankroll management" can be correct. Let's say you just a big part of your bankroll because you had to turn it into non-poker money for some reason. If have played 400NL before and now have only 1000$ left you could try to start at 100NL, because you are fairly confident that you can beat it, especially if you are able to reload.

However as this is a beginner's forum I think this is horrible advice and so I agree with Donkenstein. Just wanted to explain, so that a beginner would be able to judge for himself

Re: Also.....use Stop/Loss limits to control steaming
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't pay recklessly, with the possible exception of the beginning (but even here losses where limited at $84 which is not very much "real world" money). I am not advising anyone to take their $80 5NL roll and make a run at 200NL: THIS WAS NOT MY ADVICE. I'm an experienced NLHE player at levels from 100NL all they way up to 2kNL. My run would be virtually impossible for a beginning player as they would have to seamlessly adjust to better, more aggressive, players and the increased amount of money in play. Additionally - losing the $80 would not mean the end to my poker career as I had money on other sites - and money available for deposit if I needed to go this route.

I am fairly confident that I could repeat the 80 to 10k feat though it might take me more than 8 days and 13k cash game hands.

The contribution of my experience is threefold:

(i) it often makes sense to take some limited shots

As I said in the earlier post, the money in NL poker (10k+ months) is at 200NL+. If you are playing lower than this, your goal should be to move up as quickly as you can. Most players are going to have to do a certain amount of grinding at lower limits to figure out how to play. Once you have the basics figured out and are a solid winner at say 10NL you should be aggressively trying to break through to higher limits.

Realistically what does this mean? For most people it doesn't mean sitting at 200NL with $80 in their account, but they should be taking a 1 BI shot at 25NL (or even 50NL) bankroll of $200. If you lose it isn't a problem to grind back the money at 10NL and they have the added benefit of playing with better players and higher stakes. If you win you are on your way toward establishing yourself at the next level and dramatically increasing your hourly rate.

(ii) it is possible to move up pretty quickly with some aggressive (but limited shot taking)

The conventional 2+2 wisdom says take shots when you are ready and have 20BIs for the next level. The part about being somewhat ready is correct, but the 20BI thing is insanely conservative. Assuming you are a 5PTBB/100 winner it will take you 40k hands to accumulate 20BI for the next level assuming the next level is 2x the stakes. Some of the levels changes involve more than a doubling of the stakes (2NL to 5NL, 10NL to 25NL) so it will take longer for some of the transitions. Using this approach it would take the 5PTBB/100 winner over 220k hands to move from 2NL to 200NL. This is 11 20k hand months. More aggressive shot taking could make this transition happen much quicker with fairly limited increase in risk (you shouldn't be all that worried about losing a microstakes roll because it isn't very much "real world" money). Also, starting at a higher level (say 10NL) would shorten the amount of time it took dramatically.

(iii) if you don't move up when you can you are costing yourself $.

If it took you 200k hands and 11 months to move to 200NL and you could of accomplished (with minimal risk) the same feat in 100K hands and 5 months you left a lot of money on the table.

One of the reasons why my strategy was so not reckless is that the potential winnings associated with playing higher stakes dwarfed my initial risk. I would have cost myself a ridiculous amount of money by trying to grind my $80 up playing 10NL (the lowest level on the site I was playing).

Look at the Chris Fergusen zero to hero thing - It took him over 1-year to move his roll from $0 to $10k. Do you think he could of done it faster without his restrictive bankroll rules? I do. He is apparently a decent tourney player and would proably have an edge in lots of cash games as well. What does a good player like Chris cost himself by taking so long and being so conservative? A lot of [censored] money. What would he be costing himself with a more aggressive approach to moving up? Not much. He might lose his meager bankroll in the beginning.

Lucky