[raze]

Hey Dazarath,

It's great to see some constructive criticism.

[ QUOTE ]


As an example, imagine a player who has a $3,000 bankroll, and is strong enough to play 5/10. But if the swings at that limit cause him to lose sleep, he'd be much better off playing 3/6 or even 2/4, until he's comfortable with the larger swings.

Don't be afraid to move down if you feel that you can't handle the swings, or that you don't have the skill to beat the current stakes for a reasonable amount. There is no shame in playing lower to rebuild your confidence and your roll.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I completely agree.


[ QUOTE ]

I also think the mentality of, "hey, I'm willing to reload, so I can play on a short roll" is dangerous. By playing on a short roll, and always moving up stakes ASAP, you're setting yourself up to go bust, either due to a bad run, or because you move up until you're incapable of beating a certain set of stakes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I should have been more clear in my post. I consider "I'm willing to reload, so I can play on a short roll" and "playing on a short roll, and always moving up stakes ASAP" to be completely different. The guys that are willing to play short and frequently reload can absolutely be successful, winning players, but this type of bankroll management is not something that I advise because I have no experience with it.

The 'move up with 30, down with 10' method I described: I do not consider this a short bankroll, nor do I believe players will go broke using it. An example:

A very inexperienced player starts at $50NL with $1000. He loses ten buy-ins, and has just ten left over. He moves down to $25NL with $500, or 20 buy-ins.

He loses another ten buy-ins, and promptly moves down to $10NL with $250, or 25 buy-ins.

He loses another ten buy-ins.

This player has now lost 30 buy-ins. His problem is not that his bankroll was too short; rather, his problem is that he played in games far too difficult for his skill level! Now I know variance is part of poker, but speaking from 350,000 hands experience and several painful downswings (and maybe this is not enough to have fully experienced variance), a good player losing 30+ consecutive buy-ins is either a) ridiculously unlucky, or b) not a significant winner at the limit he plays. I just spent twenty minutes trying to find a great thread, full of graphs and figures, that outlines the fact that a player with a marginal winrate will have FAR more downswings and breakeven stretches than a player with a modest winrate (if anyone can find this thread please please post it here). As Dazarath said, there is no shame in finding a limit you can beat... and proceeding to beat the hell out of it to rebuild your confidence and bankroll!

To summarize, I think the 10-to-30 buy-in rule is most effective when you start at a reasonably low limit relative to your perceived skill level.