BR management question (I like to be flammed)

[jetsetboy]

I looked in the FAQ and haven't seen anything related to br management so I decided to make a nice and usefull post about it (please don't ban me).

I'm a NL player and was playing on PS during the last 3 months. I decided to stop playing there (because PS is rigged). I have a very limited experience in PLO (15k hands) and thanks to this large sample i can say that I crush everything up to PLO100 on stars and can't manage to win at PLO200 (despite the fact that doughdebase gave me around 6bi there). I am going to cash out most of my BR from stars because I will play NL on other sites and only keep what I need to play PLO.

My objectives in PLO are:
_ To be able to make as much VPP as I can till the end of the year (I have made 156k vpp this year and it would be cool if I can reach the first milestone even if I don't think it's realistic).
_ To learn how to play PLO. I must confess that I have no clue on how to play and that I'm basicly a nut pendler.
_ To be able to post some hands here that could give me a good feed back on my game.
_ To be at least a break even player at PLO200 in january/february in order to be able to maintain my SN status playing only 12k hands/month.

My plan in order to achieve these goals is to use an agressive bank roll management policy till january and to grind PLO100/PLO200 in january to build a roll allowing me to stay at those limits. I'm able to follow very strict up/down rules as I don't rely on PLO to cash out anything before roughly 1 year (I will cash out every $ I make though bonus/freerolls instead)

My plan is to begin with a $1000 BR and to play 50k hands till the end of the year maybe more if I can reach the first milestone. I thought I might begin at PLO50. I play 6max 6/8 tabling. I need precise rules for moving up/down.

Clif notes : aggressives BR management rules for playing 6max PLO, in order to learn and maximise VPP on stars with a br of $1000.

[heater]

To me being aggressive with $1,000 would be playing a mix of PLO25 and PLO50 tables. Playing with 20 bi isn't aggressive, it's suicide, imho. If you can easily replace the 1k, then go for it. Otherwise, I think you may want to be a little more conservative.

[chucky]

If you try to play PLO 200 with only 5 buy-in bankroll, your risk of ruin will be pretty substantial. The general guidelines for buy-ins to play a level is at minimum 20-25 buyins unless you are merely taking shots. Even then, taking shots for 1/5th your bankroll is very extreme. Good luck with your 6-tabling on 6max. From what has been written in this forum in the last year I would guess that attempting to nut peddle in PLO 200, especially in 6max games is a losing proposition.

[jetsetboy]

@chucky: u haven't read my post, I will not play any level including PLO5 with only 5bi. I said I might begun with $1000 at PLO50

heater: is-it that much a suicide. My objective is no to grind or to profit, it's to learn without going broke.

If I had to answer this post in NLHE I would say something like this:

Move up with:
_ $1500 for NL100
_ $3600 for NL200
_ $8000 for NL400
_ $12000 for NL600 if you really want to be that agressive

Move down with:
_ $600 for NL25 providing u don't want to play NL10
_ $1000 for NL50
_ $2000 for NL100
_ $4000 for NL200
_ $8000 for NL400

By the end of january u will need:
_ $4000 to play NL100 wo moving down providing u are a winning player at this level.
_ $10000 to play NL200 wo moving down providing u are a winning player at this level.

These rules would be very different if the actual question would be "make a real profit" because I would say something like 30bi up to nl100, 50bi NL200+ or something like that.

[Elrazor]

FWIW i think 15 bi's will be fine at PLO100, personaly i would be fine at 10bi's for anything less as the standard is so bad

[lucky_mf]

FTP recently offered to switch my account to a rakeback affiliate so I decided to switch some of my play there. I funded my account with $2k and set about 4-6 tabling $200 PLO (w/ shots at $400 PLO with around $2k). I funded the account last week Thursdayish and dropped under $700 twice (once under $500) since then. I'm by no means gods gift to PLO, but I think I'm decent (better than average for certain). Currently, I've built up to $4k. I feel like I'm out of the woods now if I only play $200 PLO (which I won't do cause I'm a shot taker).

What's the point of my experience? It would be pretty easy to busto at $200 PLO with a bankroll of $1k unless you were very good player using variance reduction techniques.

Lucky

[pete fabrizio]

Taking a 5bi shot when you have 20bi for a level is pretty close to Kelly-perfect for a very very good player, so anything more aggressive than that is mathematically unsound.

[jetsetboy]

Pete what is the kelly-perfect? If I understand you correctly that would mean up/down from nl100 with $2000/$1500 for a very very good player which I'm not. What would sound good for a not very very good player?

[Big Dave D]

There is a lot of nonsense talked about BR management in general. When I lurked in the NL forums there were a lot of folks that seemingly thought they were never going to get broke, but, perhaps unsurprisingly did. And PLO is much worse than NLHE in that regard. In general, there is a unmathematical short hand which through practical experience is seen as being a useful guide:

20-30 BI = shot taking
50 BI = ok, but be prepared to move down
100 BI = never need to move down, if a winning player

gl

bdd

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of nonsense talked about BR management in general. When I lurked in the NL forums there were a lot of folks that seemingly thought they were never going to get broke, but, perhaps unsurprisingly did. And PLO is much worse than NLHE in that regard. In general, there is a unmathematical short hand which through practical experience is seen as being a useful guide:

20-30 BI = shot taking
50 BI = ok, but be prepared to move down
100 BI = never need to move down, if a winning player

gl

bdd

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly agree with BDD here except with his characterization of those numbers as un-mathematical. In the current climate his "shorthand" is pretty mathematically solid.