[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
A bankroll of like 10 buyins is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. I say this as an experienced poker player and as a mathematician. The Kelly criterion recommends even lower bankroll requirements.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone feels like they could never go on that sort of downswing until it happens to them, then they change their tune.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, rational bankroll management is not about having a larger bankroll than the worst recorded downswing. You will eventually hit a 20 buy-in downswing if you play long enough, but that doesn't mean you aren't safe if you start with 10 buy-ins. Almost all of the time, by the time you hit a huge downswing, you will have won a few buy-ins. Often, you will be ahead hundreds or thousands of buy-ins at that point, so saving a small fraction of your winnings will let you survive a 20 buy-in downswing.

If you are so conservative that you think you need to have 20 buy-ins for NL $25, that's ok. But then it is quite inappropriate for you to play NL $400 with only 20 buy-ins. It is wrong for the FAQ to say that you need the same number of buy-ins when you play for pennies with people who don't realize you can take money away from the table if you have some left, and who make curiosity overcalls, as you do when you are playing NL $400 with several professional players at your table and one LAG fish.