Aggressive bankroll management
 

I know the accepted wisdom is that you should have 20 buy ins for NL cash games. Would it be considered a mistake to start taking shots when you have 11 buy ins if you accept that you will step back down again if you go below 10 buy ins?

Running super hot over a small sample just now and I wouldn't mind taking a shot at the next level while I'm running good.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know the accepted wisdom is that you should have 20 buy ins for NL cash games. Would it be considered a mistake to start taking shots when you have 11 buy ins if you accept that you will step back down again if you go below 10 buy ins?

[/ QUOTE ]
The 20 buy-ins guess is repeated too often. It is wrong for most players. For many winning microstakes players, 20 buy-ins is overly conservative. For many marginal winners, and those playing in tougher games, 20 buy-ins is overly aggressive.

If you are playing for microstakes (below NL $100), and are beating the lower level for a decent win rate, then it is quite reasonable to take shots when you have over half of the value you think you might want to have at the higher level if you could not move back down. Make sure to drop back down if you hit a bad streak.

[ QUOTE ]
Running super hot over a small sample just now and I wouldn't mind taking a shot at the next level while I'm running good.

[/ QUOTE ]
The cards have no memory, but if you are playing well and have some confidence, take a shot.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

I play $100 NL 6max 4 tables with a 20ish buyin bankroll.. Ive been playing for about 5 months now and just getting into Multibling...I've always followed the 20 buyin rule...curious to know if this still applies for Multi-tabling?

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

Yes, playing more tables shouldn't affect your bankroll approach as long as you're still a winning player multi-tabling. Multitabling let's you see more hands per hour so your overall variance should go down.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
curious to know if this still applies for Multi-tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever rule you're using applies the same to multitabling. You're going to end up winning/losing the same much per hand multitabling as you would single tabling, so you shouldn't differentiate.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
No such thing as running good, if your wanting to move up limits maybe play one session and then continue to do your normal level until you feel comfy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think running good isn't real, wait until you start running bad, then let me know if it's real or not.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

When you start playing it is more likely that the correct determinant for when you can move up is your relative skill level (or edge) than some sort of strict BR multiplier.

I think when you start you should think about moving up once you can show 10k hands at a profit of 5PTBB/100 or better (having checked using PokerEv that this isn't just a good run).

For example at the $10 tables this would be a profit of $100. Assuming you had 20 buy-ins ($200) when you started, your roll would now be $300 + some RB/bonuses and that might be an OK time to take at shot at the $25's, dropping back if you lost the $100...

In general though I think it pays to take your time and use a conservative BR management strategy (say 40 buy-ins) when moving up - the more mistakes you eradicate when it's cheap the less are left to make when it costs you more - it's just too easy to outrun your skill level and end up playing with scared money and with too much ego to go down.

Many is the player who has moved up early (aggressively), run good and so developed a sense of entitlements that the level they are playing at is their correct level when they are wrong. But they are too stubborn to move down and add tilt to playing under-rolled and over their heads.


Use PokerEv to double check your win/loss rates - proceed on the basis that the corrected rate is your actual rate and you won't kid yourself about your skill level - this is very important..

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

Thanks, that makes sense!

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

Some people find that they play significantly worse while multitabling, but still win more money per hour due to getting more hands.

If your win rate per hand drops, then you need to increase your bankroll requirements inversely. If your win rate does not drop, then you do not need to increase your bankroll requirements, any mroe than you would need to increase your bankroll requirements on a site that deals more hands per hour on each table.

The same is true when you move up. Using a fixed number of buy-ins at all levels is an assertion that your win rate is the same, whether you are playing NL $10 or NL $100. The consensus is that the higher stakes games are much tougher, and do not allow win rates nearly as high, which means you need more buy-ins to be as safe while playing NL $100 than you do to play NL $10. If you are so conservative that you think you need 20 buy-ins at NL $10, then you may need 60 buy-ins to have the same level of safety at NL $100 if your win rate is 1/3 as much.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
Multitabling let's you see more hands per hour so your overall variance should go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is wrong, but I think I know what you're trying to say.

Your variance doesn't change by multitabling. It's just that you are seeing more hands per hour. You are seeing the effect of variance more quickly by doing this IYSWIM.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No such thing as running good, if your wanting to move up limits maybe play one session and then continue to do your normal level until you feel comfy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think running good isn't real, wait until you start running bad, then let me know if it's real or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can say that again.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

Your variance per hour goes down (as increased hand numbers smooth out variance)

You variance per hand remains the same.

So you are both right [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
If your win rate per hand drops, then you need to increase your bankroll requirements inversely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not just your win rate is important, but also your variance per hand. If your per hand win rate INCREASES marginally (through tighter preflop play, experience, game selection, etc), but your per hand variance increases substantially (by pushing smaller edges, more aggro games, etc), you will need to increase your bankroll requirements.

I agree mostly with what you say, but win rate is not everything when it comes to bankroll management.

Re: Aggressive bankroll management
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think when you start you should think about moving up once you can show 10k hands at a profit of 5PTBB/100 or better (having checked using PokerEv that this isn't just a good run).

[/ QUOTE ]

5PTBB? Can you plz explain?