Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

I plan on depositing $100 after going broke (playing over proper BR guidelines). This will be my first deposit on Poker Stars.

I typically play NLHE, SnG, and the very rare MTT. I have started to learn some other games as well (any of the HORSE games).

What would you recommend to build a BR starting with only $100?

Thanks!
John

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
I plan on depositing $100 after going broke (playing over proper BR guidelines). This will be my first deposit on Poker Stars.

I typically play NLHE, SnG, and the very rare MTT. I have started to learn some other games as well (any of the HORSE games).

What would you recommend to build a BR starting with only $100?

Thanks!
John

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice to have the deposit be at site where you could get some rakeback as the rakeback could buffer your losses starting out. This said, I don't think (but I'm not sure either) that there are sites where you can get rakeback and play within the guidelines of a $100 bankroll (assuming your not a huge winner).

If you are just starting out you are probably not a "good" player yet and are probably going to lose some money. To limit these losses and allow you to play longer on the $100 I would recommends starting very low (2NL or whatever). When you feel like you have a handle on things and start playing even-money or being a slight winner poker you can try some higher limit games.

Lucky

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Yea starting out at 10NL would even be risky.

I would start out at 2NL (cash 2 dollar max buyin) or 5NL (cash game 5 dollar max buyin)

I wouldn't play a MTT over 1 dollar and I wouldn't play a sit'n'go over 5 bucks.

Good luck

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

The first step to building a bankroll is learning to win. If you haven't established a winning track record, you should set a budget and play within it.

You'll hear a lot of people say that you should have 300 big bets for limit, 20 buy-ins for NL, 100 buy-ins for MTTs, etc. However, these assume that you are winning at a solid rate, and 20 buy-ins for NL is much more conservative than 300 BB for limit, which is much more conservative than 100 buy-ins for large MTTs, assuming normal win rates in low stakes games. In the microstakes games, an expert can play safely with far fewer BBs or buy-ins than in a tougher game, so if you learn to play NL decently before you drop to $20, you can safely rebuild in games with a $0.02 big blind.

I recommend playing the lowest stakes NL games, NL $5 with a $0.02 big blind. Initially, buy in for $1 or $2 at a time. You get feedback a bit more rapidly than in other games, and you won't have to unlearn much if you decide to play tournaments later.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

The micro limits are really all you are rolled for anyway.

Play .01/.02, $1.10 SNGs and they have MTTs for $3,$2,$1, .50 .25 .10.

Just don't think one day I think I'll take a shot at 1/2 or play that $11R tourney it is a quick way too lose your money.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

If you want to gamble a bit play the 4$ 180 STGs. Lots of weak players there.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Hey Lucky, thanks for replying. I would like rakeback but already have a play account on FTP, and a money on UB. That leaves PS for me.

I would consider myself more than a beginner. I have been playing for the past 3 years so I have a good handle on ABC poker.

So you feel cash games are the way to go rather than Sng? Thanks again!

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

I think it'll depend heavily on what you think you play best. If you have more experience playing cash games, then play cash. If you have more tourney experience, play SnG's. I'm an advocate of going the cash route because you'll learn to be patient and tighten up. I think that with $100, 5NL is a good place to start and you'll clear your $50 bonus faster than you would at 2NL.

I also think you'll be better off focusing on one game and building your skills at that one game instead of playing 4 or 5 different types of poker. It can be good to take a break every now and then and play some Razz or Omaha, but you really want to focus on being good at one game first. (Of course, this is just my opinion, but the sooner you get better, the sooner you can generate income from poker, assuming this is your goal [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). I started in mid-August with a $50 deposit on stars, playing 5NL and worked my BR up to $650 playing 10NL and 25NL. I then moved it to FullTilt to get rakeback and had a MASSIVE downswing that would've left me broke had I not gotten some bonus monies. I moved back to stars with my $200, lost another $100, and moved back down to 10NL and took a long break to read, work on my game, and figure out if it was just variance, tilt or crappy play (it turns out, it was a bit of all 3. Since then, I've built my BR to 1k and and now beating 50NL at a decent rate. Things I've learned from all this:

1) Don't be afraid to move down if you're not properly rolled for a limit (I like to have at least 15BI's for wherever I am, but will move down immediately if I have less than 10)

2) When you start feeling like this could really be a way to make money, invest in Poker Tracker and PAHUD. Both of these programs are priceless IMO (in reality, they run $80 together), but they're both exceptional tools to have.

3) Post hands in the forums. (Either micro stakes if you play 6max, or full ring if you play full ring). Getting feedback on your play will definitely help you improve, and giving feedback on other hands can help you start thinking about the game in a way that will help your profits. Good luck and I hope to see your posts in the forums soon!

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Lucky, thanks for replying. I would like rakeback but already have a play account on FTP, and a money on UB. That leaves PS for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think your play money accounts preclude you from getting rakeback at those sites. I would advise checking with a reputable affiliate on this.

[ QUOTE ]
I would consider myself more than a beginner. I have been playing for the past 3 years so I have a good handle on ABC poker.

So you feel cash games are the way to go rather than Sng? Thanks again!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of variance in 9 and 6 handed sngs which means that you would have to play fairly low. For this reason I don't like them much.

HU sngs are low variance and if you are good at them they are easy money. If I was trying to build a roll from close to nothing I would mix HU sngs with cash.

Lucky

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Go with whatever you think you have the best chance at beating - cash or sngs. Pick one thing (you can dabble around until you find this one thing, but be looking for it) that you want to build in, and go there. Don't be constrained by TV preconceptions, many people are better outside of holdem than within it.

I would skip MTTs entirely until you have established a more comfortable bankroll, the varience isn't worth it at this point.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

The best way to beat microstakes is bonus whoring/rakeback. You can be a profitable player, but at the stakes you're playing, you'll make just as much through bonuses. If you haven't made a real money deposit on sites, usually you still qualify for bonuses.

Far and away the best advice I can give you to build up your bankroll from $100 is if you ever lose more than $10 in a given session, quit. When you are first starting it is super-easy to lose it all in one day tilting or not caring.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

If you just deposited $100 on Poker Stars, start at the .02/.05 No limit hold'em tables buying in for $5. The players are aweful and you can easily work your way up to $200 playing there for a short while. Once you get close to $200 you can take a shot at .05/.10. When you get to $200 you'll have 20 buy-ins for .05/.10. 20 buy-ins is the magic number here for any stakes you're playing at.

Forget about SNGs, MTTs, HORSE, Omaha 8/b, or any other split pot games. I consider myself an excellent Omaha8/b and Stud/hi-lo player but the games are nowhere near as profitable as no limit hold'em...especially Omaha 8/b which is the KING of suckout poker games. If I feel like taking a break from NLHE, I'll play some HORSE or split pot games for fun just to give my mind a break from the monotony of hold'em. I played Omaha 8/b for just over a month starting out with $100 and managed to get it up to $136. When I went back to NLHE I turned $136 into $230 in 3 weeks. I'm comfortably playing .05/.10 and I'm planning on taking a shot at .10/.25 when I get up to $350. When I say take a shot, I don't mean stay there until I lose $100, I mean take a shot or two by doubling up at a table then moving back down to .05/.10 and banking the profit I made at .10/.25. I hope this helps.

AC

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

OK here is my expierence starting with $100, which I have done multiple times, and have great sucess many ways.

#1, I suggest you DONT play 2nl or 5nl, it is not even poker with 20xBB raise is standard, and every1 is all in. You will not learn anything from it, and it will only worsen your game.

#2) Wanna take a chance? Here is my #1, way of playing. I go to 50nl HU, and just win like no other, b/c most fish are at low stakes HU. I win about $300 and I go 3 table 50NL, and just build up from there. But it is risky starting out.

#3) S&G's, I would start out with $5 6-max S&G's where many fish come to play. Easy wins, and you can make $100 in a day playing that.

#4) Do some MTT. If you do like $1 rebuys or something, and keep it to $4 or $5 max per game, you can make a killing with one Top 3 finish.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]

2) When you start feeling like this could really be a way to make money, invest in Poker Tracker and PAHUD. Both of these programs are priceless IMO (in reality, they run $80 together), but they're both exceptional tools to have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just get them now. They will pay for themselves shortly. Go to the software forum if you're confused on how to configure PokerTracker or PAHUD (Poker Ace HUD). I would try 6-max NLHE because the games are really soft. Read Tien's post on 6-max fundamentals found HERE to get an idea of how to properly play TAG.

AC

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to beat microstakes is bonus whoring/rakeback. You can be a profitable player, but at the stakes you're playing, you'll make just as much through bonuses.

[/ QUOTE ]
While bonuses and rakeback may boost your win rate slightly, they are not worth much to a player with only $100. If you get 20% rakeback, then to get $100, you need to pay $500 worth of rake. For that to happen before you lose $100, you need to beat the table average by a lot. It's much more important for someone with $100 to concentrate on finding a game to beat.

People get really excited about rakeback, but this often comes with a higher rake. Further, in NL, win rates of solid players are much higher than the rake, and thus many times larger than rakeback. Winning small stakes LHE players often have lower win rates than the rake, which makes getting a good rakeback deal (on a site which doesn't charge extra rake to cover it) more important.

[ QUOTE ]
Far and away the best advice I can give you to build up your bankroll from $100 is if you ever lose more than $10 in a given session, quit.

[/ QUOTE ]
That might help to prevent tilt, but it will only slow down the losses (and learning) of a losing player or the downswings of a player who is underbankrolled, such as a marginal winner playing $3 SNGs or $3 MTTs. It's all one long session.

It's much more important to learn to beat the game. No betting system will turn a -EV game to your advantage, since no sum of negative numbers is positive.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
20 buy-ins is the magic number here for any stakes you're playing at.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

First, a losing player will burn through any amount. A marginal winning needs a much larger bankroll than a solid winner.

Second, in low stakes games, a solid winner does not need anything close to 20 buy-ins, while in higher stakes games, 20 buy-ins is not enough for an expert.

Saying 20 buy-ins is like responding "4:00" any time someone asks what time it is. Maybe it's close, but only accidentally.

[ QUOTE ]
Forget about SNGs, MTTs, HORSE, Omaha 8/b, or any other split pot games. I consider myself an excellent Omaha8/b and Stud/hi-lo player but the games are nowhere near as profitable as no limit hold'em...especially Omaha 8/b which is the KING of suckout poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you reject SNGs. They are simple, they have a relatively low variance, and they are relatively easy to multitable. SNGs are fine for building a bankroll, but their simplicity may stunt your poker development, and higher stakes SNGs are not as profitable as other high poker variants.

If you know how to play, split pot games like O8 and Stud8 offer high win rates relative to their variance, particularly when you play SNGs. Yes, suckouts happen, but very often it is just for half of the pot, and you can make a killing when you are the only one going for low when you are playing several people who think (J8)J or QQ85 are good hands, and who draw to lows that aren't close to the nuts.

These are more complicated than Hold'em, so it is harder to teach a beginner to play them, but they are a safe way for an expert to (re)build a bankroll rapidly.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]

I suggest you DONT play 2nl or 5nl, it is not even poker with 20xBB raise is standard, and every1 is all in. You will not learn anything from it, and it will only worsen your game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many good lessons can be learned even at the lowest stakes. Some of the most profitable situations at NL $1k come when you realize someone is playing the same way you might have learned to crush at NL $2. That happens a lot more than you might think, since contrary to the common misconception, losing players at every level generally deposit at that level. They did not win their way up from lower levels, so they are not necessarily avoiding the mistakes from lower levels.

It is also good to have the possibility of rebuilding from $20 by playing penny-ante NL as a safety net.

[ QUOTE ]

Wanna take a chance? Here is my #1, way of playing. I go to 50nl HU,


[/ QUOTE ]
Playing NL $50 HU on a $100 bankroll is close to the opposite of rational bankroll management. It's gambling on a game where the OP is likely to lose.

[ QUOTE ]
Do some MTT. If you do like $1 rebuys or something, and keep it to $4 or $5 max per game, you can make a killing with one Top 3 finish.

[/ QUOTE ]
$100 is not necessarily a sufficient bankroll to play even normal $1 tournaments. You might make a killing, but you don't get much feedback about what you are doing wrong before you bust out. A lot of the advantage in MTTs comes from playing well at the final table, since a large fraction of your profits comes from winning, not just making the final table or cashing, and you don't get much final table practice even if you play a lot of MTTs.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

My personal rule for bankroll management is 2%. I only allow myself to buy in to tournaments for 2% of my bankroll or less.

An easy way to calculate 2% is, move the decimal two places to the left and then double that number. For example. You have $100.00 Move the decimal over 2 spots you get $1. Double that number you get $2. It is safe for you to play a $2 tournament with a $100 bankroll. Once you work your way up to $250, you can play for $5 and so on. If you have a solid game, before you know it you'll be buying into $100 tournaments ;-)

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
My personal rule for bankroll management is 2%. I only allow myself to buy in to tournaments for 2% of my bankroll or less.


[/ QUOTE ]
That might be fine for you in some context, but it's pretty dangerous as a general rule.

A reasonable guideline is to use

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

People typically want a comfort level from 2 (aggressive) to 4 (conservative). The standard deviation for a 200 player tournament depends a bit on your playing style. It may be about 5 buy-ins for a break-even player, and 6 buy-ins for a player with a 50% ROI. Let's call it 6 for this example. What ROI do you need to have a comfort level of 3 with a bankroll of 50 buy-ins?

50 = 3 * 6^2 / ROI
ROI = 108/50 = 2.16 = 216%.

A 216% ROI means you average a prize of $3.16 for every $1 you use to buy in. That's a lot higher than I think anyone can expect to get in all but the softest MTTs of that size. (Also, we underestimated your standard deviation, which should have been about 9 buy-ins.) The MTT FAQ says much lower ROIs are good, so the vast majority of players will not have a high comfort level when playing with 50 MTT buy-ins.

While people repeat 20 buy-ins for NL, and 100 buy-ins for MTTs, the latter is typically much more aggressive. 50 buy-ins is dangerously aggressive.

Playing satellites to bigger tournaments can be fun and profitable. However, if your bankroll is not large enough to buy in directly, then you should view winning a satellite as worth less than the entry fee to the larger event.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Lucky, thanks for replying. I would like rakeback but already have a play account on FTP, and a money on UB. That leaves PS for me.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've had money on UB for a couple years and just switched my account to rakeback today. As long as you didn't sign up with an affiliate, raketherake.com should be able to switch your account to rakeback. Other sites may be able to switch your account too, but this is the only one that I came across.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While bonuses and rakeback may boost your win rate slightly, they are not worth much to a player with only $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

My bonus at FT amounts to 42% rakeback. In addition to that I will be getting rakeback through an affiliate.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While bonuses and rakeback may boost your win rate slightly, they are not worth much to a player with only $100.

[/ QUOTE ]
My bonus at FT amounts to 42% rakeback. In addition to that I will be getting rakeback through an affiliate.

[/ QUOTE ]
How many cents per hour would even 100% rakeback be worth to someone playing NL $2? My estimate is about 10-15 cents/table-hour, although it depends on a few factors; 42% rakeback would be worth 4-6 cents/table-hour. That is a lot less than the achievable win rates at that level, say 60 cents/table-hour. I stand by my statement that rakeback is not worth much to someone trying to build up from a $100 bankroll. It is much more important to find game you can beat for a good rate.

Rakeback at Full Tilt is worth a bit more to a microstakes NL player, since Full Tilt takes 10% rake at NL $10 instead of the normal 5%. However, that's not a good deal overall.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Either way, though- it is sage advice to sign up for RB in the beginning.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]


Rakeback at Full Tilt is worth a bit more to a microstakes NL player, since Full Tilt takes 10% rake at NL $10 instead of the normal 5%. However, that's not a good deal overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play $5 and $10 SNGs - While I'm clearing my bonus I get to play the 5 for .29c instead of .50 and the $10 for .58c instead of $1. That's how I look at it.

It's really making a difference too. I wasted a bunch of time and money on UB.. Which, by the way: if anyone plays mainly SNGs UB is NOT the place to be. There is no rakeback for SNGs on UB.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, though- it is sage advice to sign up for RB in the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. If the OP were planning to play on a site with rakeback, of course it makes sense, but the OP mentioned making a deposit to PokerStars. As far as I know, rakeback is not an option on PokerStars. There are many reasons for beginners to play there, and the prospect of getting a tiny reduction in rake elsewhere is rather unimportant compared with the presence of NL games with $0.02 and with $0.05 big blinds and lower rake at NL $10.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

hey John,

i only took advantage of 1/2 the 1st time depo bonus(OBV donk) at PS and i played like i had some sort of BR and lost that quicker then it took to get it on PS. i then threw on $50 and haven't gone broke since and this was over a year ago now....

after losing a few K's at UB(my 1st net poker site) and issues at the home/job front...i learned BR management as best i could, especially when i donked of the first $25 at PS. i simply just said to myself...'this is the last bit make or break'.

for some reason it didn't bother me one bit that i started grinding the penny tables at PS with my big bad $50 when i was used to ranging pathetically through .25/.50-3/6NL at UB.

i like cash...sng's and mtt's and i wanted to play them all at PS and with PS having .10, .25 and .50 mtt's it was a blessing for 'us' that have a tiny BR. so my commitments were to grind out a session or 2 at .01/.02NL with my $1 or $2(sometimes $3) and whatever profit i made for my session i would use no more then 75% of it to play the sng's and mtt's i started to treasure so much on PS.

well i believe i got very fortunate with grinding upwards b/c i started getting some nice profits going to where i'd chance the $4.40 180 player donk fests and took 2 down almost side by side from each other(haven't won one since LOL). these wins OBV put me up in levels instantaneously. the using 2-5% of BR code of conduct(s) is a great way to stay alive in this game. using too much of your BR on one shot is quite the gamble that hasn't worked out in my favour for the majority(not even half of a half LOL).

if there's any advice i can give you...listen to what everyone has to say and take the good the bad and the SPLAMMMMMAGE out of it all and set your own rules of thumbs that are realistically maintainable and be consistent towards it all.

it's a slow grind upwards but upwards nonetheless...i learned you try to play beyond your means(financially, psychologically and intellectually) you're most likely going to hit 'paved' dirt(not pay dirt [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

hope this helps in anyway John,

Clayton

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to gamble a bit play the 4$ 180 STGs. Lots of weak players there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not recommend a beginner with $100 br to play these. Yes, they are VERY soft, but also very hard for a beginner to final table. I have won several, but I have also went 6-10 in a row without cashing many times. Stick to $2nl or $3sng TOPS.

Some sound advise here though.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Thanks for replying Pzhon, you seem to understand the theory of BR management the best.

Do you have a handy chart that shows all the calculations based on "accepted" numbers for ROI, SD, etc? I am guessing that if SnG's offer a typical ROI and SD we should see a typical BR requirment. Or is that where the 100 buy-ins come from?

If I am a beginner or someone who has been playing for a few years without tracking my results I won't know my ROI or SD, correct? I would need hundreds of thousands of hands logged in PT to know for sure.

Am I right in my thinking?

Thanks again

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

From what I have read about rake back, it is important to get it when signing up, only for the reason that if I move up and play high stakes later, I will see the benefit of RB at that time, not during my micro days.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

One final question. Seems that the advice is to play what I am comfortable with, be it cash or Sng or MTT. Focus on that to build my BR and play within the limits my roll defines.

However, how do I handle wanting to take the occasional shot at a bigger game? Say the wife and kids are away for a weekend and I want stay up all night and play in a 2000 player, $10 MTT just for fun and maybe if I run well, a nice cash.

Do I need to replace/deposit that $10 directly and leave my roll alone? Guess I am asking, is it OK to "gamble" with some of my roll on the very rare occasion? And if so, how often and how much?

Hate to think that my roll is only for one type of game at one type of limit. Or is that the definition of "grind"?

Thanks for all the good responses so far!!

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you know how to play, split pot games like O8 and Stud8 offer high win rates relative to their variance, particularly when you play SNGs. Yes, suckouts happen, but very often it is just for half of the pot, and you can make a killing when you are the only one going for low when you are playing several people who think (J8)J or QQ85 are good hands, and who draw to lows that aren't close to the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's say you're playing limit O/8 and you have a wrap around draw while holding AA23 on this board:

Flop: 4 5 K
Turn: 3
River: 4

...and someone calls your raises on all streets but a moron stays in with two pair and fills up on the river. You split the pot and either lose to the rake or make minimal profit. This occurs especially in Omaha 8/b which is a game of the nuts. Certainly there is the occassional scoop, but if you're here to tell me that split pot games are more profitable than NLHE, I can't buy into that line of thinking. Show me someone's PT Omaha stats that are over 2BB/100 over a sample size of 20,000 - 30,000 hands (besides Jethro [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). I think they'll be few and far between. Even in Stud/8 it's difficult to get to 4BB/100 at the micro limits, though I managed to do it over about 12,000 hands.

But then again...you never said split pot games were more profitable. You said you can make a killing against the donks that think cards like QQ85 or similar holdings give them the opportunity to play more hands. I'm not hating on SNGs. I play them occassionally and enjoy them. I just like cash games better and think they're more profitable. I have been successful in O/8 (pot limit) and Stud/8 SNGs, so I'll give you that. However, I think the split pot cash games at the micro-limits are a waste of time.

AC

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you have a handy chart that shows all the calculations based on "accepted" numbers for ROI, SD, etc?


[/ QUOTE ]
There are a few worked examples in this post. However, you should not assume that those are your win rates. It's ok (but not ideal) to assume that those are your standard deviations.

A lot of threads in the BBV forum are about some huge breakeven or losing stretch someone had that should be quite rare if the player is a solid winner. Much of the time, the person has not first established that he is a solid winning player at that level, and he may not be beating that level at all. (E.g., the player says he was beating NL $25 on Party, then moved to NL $50, on PokerStars, then dropped down to NL $25, still on PokerStars.) It would be extremely unlucky for an expert like Jennifer Harman to have a losing year in LHE. It's not a surprise if a random player does.

Sadly, many people have been fooled by an upswing into thinking that they could turn pro, and played in games they couldn't beat, much less beat for enough to make a decent living. That doesn't end well.

[ QUOTE ]

I am guessing that if SnG's offer a typical ROI and SD we should see a typical BR requirment. Or is that where the 100 buy-ins come from?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid that gives a bit too much credit to the group. The SD for 9 or 10 player SNGs is about 1.7 buy-ins, but the ROIs vary widely. As with many other groups, the bankroll requirements recommended by SNG players do not depend on the win rates, but they should. If your ROI is 30%, you only need 1/6 of the number of buy-ins as someone with a ROI of 5%. 30% is greater that the STT FAQ says is achievable in $6 turbos, but it is achievable when playing a few low stakes non-turbos at a time.

When an expert who has a 5% ROI while playing 16 high stakes SNGs at a time tells you his downswings, it doesn't mean you will see anything similar if you have a 20% ROI playing low stakes SNGs. He may play better and he may be making more money per hour on average, but you will tend to have smaller downswings (in buy-ins) than the expert by a factor of 4.

So, if the consensus is 100 buy-ins, that will be overly conservative for some people, and overly aggressive for others. Even for the same person, it is likely that it will be overly conservative in low stakes games, and overly aggressive in high stakes games.

Another source of bad bankroll advice is Chris Ferguson. He might be a great player, but he should have known better than to say you can play with 20 SNG buy-ins or 20 NL cash game buy-ins. The latter is much more conservative than the former, unless your SNG win rates are ridiculously high, or cash game win rates are quite low. A lot of low stakes players will want to have something like 15 buy-ins for NL and 50 for SNGs. However, because he is a poker celebrity, people will repeat his advice for years and cite his 1.5 year journey from $0 to $10k, while others have quietly gone from $50 to $10k in a few months while using better bankroll management.

[ QUOTE ]

If I am a beginner or someone who has been playing for a few years without tracking my results I won't know my ROI or SD, correct? I would need hundreds of thousands of hands logged in PT to know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are a beginner, you shouldn't assume you are a winner. It's better to assume that you are a losing player, and set a budget until you have some experience.

You never know your exact stats. You always have to make some estimates, and you should update your estimates periodically. Over time, your estimates will gradually get more accurate, but game conditions can deteriorate, or you can learn to play better.

Your standard deviation is less sensitive to your playing style than your win rate is, and you can get accurate estimates much more rapidly, after only a few thousand representative hands (say with representative stack sizes and table conditions).

Formulas like bankroll = comfort * (standard deviation^2)/ (win rate) are still useful in several ways, even without perfectly accurate estimates. For example, you might determine that you would need an extremely high win rate to be comfortable playing game X on your current bankroll, and if the required win rate is higher than what the experts say is achievable, you probably do not want to take a shot at that game.

It's natural to assume that your win rate will decrease as you move up to tougher games. Even if you don't know your win rate in the higher stakes game, you might be able to say that it's not right to move up even if your win rate does not drop. This actually happens often when marginal winners take a long time to accumulate 20 buy-ins for the next level or whatever they have heard is appropriate. Because their win rate is low, they need more buy-ins to move up even if their win rate does not drop.

You can use the risk of ruin formula ROR ~ e^(-2*comfort) ~ 1/7^comfort on pieces of your bankroll to measure the improbability of downswings based on assumptions of various win rates. Maybe you are so conservative that you want 25 buy-ins even in a soft game you think you can beat for a good rate. However, that doesn't mean you can safely ignore a 5 buy-in downswing, if that downswing will only happen 1/10 of the time if you are winning at the rate you hope, but will almost always happen if you are a losing player. Such a downswing is evidence that you have some leaks in your game.


[ QUOTE ]

However, how do I handle wanting to take the occasional shot at a bigger game? Say the wife and kids are away for a weekend and I want stay up all night and play in a 2000 player, $10 MTT just for fun and maybe if I run well, a nice cash.

Do I need to replace/deposit that $10 directly and leave my roll alone? Guess I am asking, is it OK to "gamble" with some of my roll on the very rare occasion? And if so, how often and how much?

Hate to think that my roll is only for one type of game at one type of limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can use the same bankroll for all games where you have an advantage, and on all sites. You do not need to have a separate bankroll for each game, and you do not need to worry nearly as much about losing $50 on one site if you have $500 elsewhere. Bankroll management is based on the assumption that losing everything is a disaster, not an inconvenience. Shifting money between sites is only an inconvenience, and between games it's not even inconvenient.

When you take a shot at a game you are not sure you can beat, or for which you are not safely bankrolled, you should view this as a withdrawal from your bankroll. If you are slightly underbankrolled, it is only a partial withdrawal, but it takes some work to determine the equivalent withdrawal. It's safe to view it as an expense.

If you make regular withdrawals from your bankroll, you should view this as decreasing your win rate. If you withdraw all winnings (not recommended), you should require a much higher comfort level than if you leave most of your winnings in your bankroll. A solid NL $100 player might be quite safe starting with $1500, but not if he withdraws all winnings. A schedule such as withdrawing half of all winnings over $2000 will mean that the player will not be wiped out by the first 15 buy-in downswing, and will probably have hundreds of buy-ins by the time the first 20 or 25 buy-in downswing occurs.

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Sorry to say, but you are way off base with your statements.

People don't just raise 20BB preflop and everyone calls and gets all in every hand. You must have no experience at these levels. I have thousands of hands at Stars and UB at these levels, and the play is bad, and there are some crazies that just shove, but that's great. Wait for a hand that's better than their range and call. Make sure you have 20 buyins, although I'd recommend more, and you can take some beats. When people say 'it's not poker' then what is it? You make decisions based on the players and the cards, how is that any different. Just because it's not how you want to play, don't say it's not poker. I built a free $10 deposit on UB to $450, 4 tabling 2NL until I got to about $100, then buying in short at 10NL (they have no 5NL). I ran around 9PTBB/100 for several thousand hands at 2NL. I had some bonus dollars, so that helped, but the bottom line is that 2NL is beatable, even with the rake. I'm working my way through 10NL, and I'll be jumping up shortly to 25NL.

On Stars, I followed some (bad advice similar to yours) and got my money down to $3. I've since turned that into about $120 playing their .01/.02, where the buying can go as high as $5. I would STRONGLY recommend that you start there more than anywhere. Deep stacks, bad players, plenty of opportunities to win, and the rake is better than a lot of other rooms (FT and UB). I'm running at 16PTBB/100 at that level. I moved up, took some beats, and dropped back down, but I have the stats to prove that it's beatable and safe.

Contrary to popular belief, there are some decent TAGS at the smallest of stakes, they just may not have the means to deposit 500 to start out at 25NL and instead got 10 bucks from a friend and are working their way up.

I took the advice up a buddy at played $ 5 SNGs with my original $100 deposit. It was gone in no time. One bad run and you are done with only 18 buyins playing SNGs (don't forget that .50 rake).

Playing HU with 2 buyins? That's irresponsible, and MTT's have too much variance to put 5 dollars into each of 20 MTTs.

Why would you give such poor advice?

Also, anyone that recommends split pot games or limit is crazy. You can get solid 5PTBB/100 winrates at the micros playing 6max in a 20/15 TAG style. Why play a game where only a few rare people can manage a winrate of >2 PTBB/100? If you did a poll of people's PT DB's, I'm sure there are way more people with winrates at NLHE > 5 than with split pot winrates >2.

Sorry - I didn't quote the original post I was referring to - the one from I Love Poker...

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

I agree 100% with this post...I play with this guy on UB and his winrate is solid. I have played split pot games on AP, UB, and Stars and my winrate is nowhere near what it is play NLHE. As far as the advice given by I-Love-Poker...it's the worst advice I've ever seen.

AC

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK here is my expierence starting with $100, which I have done multiple times, and have great sucess many ways.

#1, I suggest you DONT play 2nl or 5nl, it is not even poker with 20xBB raise is standard, and every1 is all in. You will not learn anything from it, and it will only worsen your game.

#2) Wanna take a chance? Here is my #1, way of playing. I go to 50nl HU, and just win like no other, b/c most fish are at low stakes HU. I win about $300 and I go 3 table 50NL, and just build up from there. But it is risky starting out.

#3) S&G's, I would start out with $5 6-max S&G's where many fish come to play. Easy wins, and you can make $100 in a day playing that.

#4) Do some MTT. If you do like $1 rebuys or something, and keep it to $4 or $5 max per game, you can make a killing with one Top 3 finish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly the worst post ever!

If you've had to use your strategy multiple times, how is it successful. Using your strategy multiple times suggests you've gone busto multiple times doing it. Isn't the whole point of bankroll management not to go bust???

AC

Re: Starting out with $100 - advice needed
 

Just chiming in to agree with the others. Beginners, Amatuers or Pros: Do not follow I Love Pokers bankroll plan. It is horid advice.