Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

I think a distinction should be made in regards to the "shot-taking" line. This depends greatly on how many tables someone normally plays. If you follow the rules Berge has listed above for taking shots, you can slowly add in tables of the higher limit.

For example, lets take the 50NL example and someone 8-tables. When you get to $1,500 and feel comfortable, add a table of 100NL into your mix when you play and if you keep grinding out a profit, slowly add more tables until eventually you are at your baseline for the next level and are plaiying that level almost exclusively.

Ideally, when your bankroll gets to the next 'baseline' you will be around the point where you are playing all of that level on your tables, but this isn't necessary.

In the example I used, you can still be playing 4 tables of 50NL and 4 tables of 100NL if you have reached the baseline of $2,000 for 100NL.

All in all, good bankroll management should use these for what they are: guidelines. Each person has a different comfort level when playing; some might be comfortable playing with 20 buy-ins for a level and others might need 40+. Only you can decide where you should be at before you move up, but these are excellent guidelines if you aren't really sure what to do.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

i've been a successful nl online player for years, and i've usually used 10BI as the rule, and am pretty sure i have never had a downswing of more than 10 BIs. I wouldn't really recommend this tho, it can be very stressful.

Honestly, 20 is probably much better.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

I think you can modify these based on a few other factors, how many tables you play and what style you play.

A laggy style playing 6+ tables needs a a much deeper roll then a 4 table tag...

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

a lot of people think "moving up" means abandoning the previous level entirely and jumping to the new one. there's no shame in mixing tables and levels, or say you move up from 25 to 50, and the 50 tables suck one night, to sit at a few of them and then more of the 25s if the 25s are better. a bigger winrate at a lower game will be more profitable than a tiny winrate or a regfest at a higher game.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, lets take the 50NL example and someone 8-tables. When you get to $1,500 and feel comfortable, add a table of 100NL into your mix when you play and if you keep grinding out a profit, slowly add more tables until eventually you are at your baseline for the next level and are plaiying that level almost exclusively.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was my plan. I ended up winning at 25NL while losing at 50NL. Small sample size so this may have been purely coincidence, but it was enough to convince me the games are sufficiently different that playing both at once isn't a great idea for me.

Now I intend to stick with 25NL 'til I hit $1800 then switch to $50NL wholesale.

This means I won't play a level without at least 36 BI. In my case, this is *not* about protecting from a downswing wiping the bankroll out (I think my game is comfortably low enough variance to be playing 50NL already with my current roll), it is about protecting my mental health. The downswings on a horrible session look far less severe. I can literally sleep better at night!

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

Thanks Berge for taking the time. This should be added to the FAQ.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
How else can we improve upon this? I'd like to add it to the FAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post.

I would add an explicit warning that you should never move up to win back losses when encountering a losing streak.

You basically say as much with the excellent advice regarding a bottom floor BR at which you move down a level, but the Psych forum is usually full of dudes who moved up to win back losses and ended up in credit card debt.

The only cure for running bad is to move DOWN before you blow most of your roll, and then grind your BR back at the lower level.

Finally, I wouldn't refer to yourself in the 3rd person. You sound a little like sup bro recounting how he was never tackeled for a loss of yardage.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I wouldn't refer to yourself in the 3rd person. You sound a little like sup bro recounting how he was never tackeled for a loss of yardage.

[/ QUOTE ]I thought he was telling a story and not really talking about himself [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].

Good post Berge20.

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
How else can we improve upon this? I'd like to add it to the FAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]


You should really be taking into account winrates when you size your BR in addition to variance (BB/100).

If you dip into the probability forum, they'd likely be able to give you much better guidelines. Though there are some pysch factors that play in (you run bad, you start to play bad... lose control of your game... etc etc)

Maybe add in a: "Play the highest level you're bankrolled for and think you are a winner" disclaimer as well?

Re: Bankroll Management: Low Stakes
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would add an explicit warning that you should never move up to win back losses when encountering a losing streak.

[/ QUOTE ]
This works every time.