[fjbourne]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, particularly since I decided to take a break after going on a fairly nasty 20k hand downswing.

We all know the minimum bankroll requirements for NL (20bi, drop down at 15bi, etc), but lately I have been wondering if there would be a more efficient way to minimize losses during downswings and if anyone practices it. Typically when we hit the worst downswings it's 12+ buy ins.
Conversely, when we hit the best upswings its usually 15+.

My theory is this- drop down to the next level after dropping 4 buy ins regardless of reason. Playing the best you've played in weeks? Drop down anyway. Table is juicy? drop down anyway. Then, Play at the lower level until you win 2 buy ins back. If you end up losing 4 buy ins, drop down again until you win 2 buy ins and then move back up the ladder.

I understand that the reason for having a big bankroll is to be able to withstand downswings and stay at a certain limit and that general bankroll guidelines do encourage dropping down when you become under rolled for a level. But couldn't this method be more EV then current bankroll guidelines?

Essentially we are minimizing the effect of a downswing on the overall size of our bankroll (although the net -bb may be the same) while allowing us to have move back up faster when the downswing is over/we start running well again.

Obviously this would take strict bankroll management/ will power, but wouldn't it be better and be more profitable then simply dropping down when you feel your not playing up to par/ become under rolled?


Forgive me if this has been discussed before.