quitting a NL session once you have reached 10% of total bankroll

[BigErf]

it is my belief that you play longer when table conditions are optimal, (running good, weaker opponents, feeling good) and quit sooner when the opposite occurs.

i have read many articles explaining why not to set win/loss limits or time limits to your play and to play the table conditions instead.

on fulltilt chris ferguson has finished his second run at turning $0 into $10,000 and $1 into $20,000. he gives strict guidlines to which he follows and mentions that anytime he plays NL or PL holdem once the money on the table reaches 10% of his total bankroll he must leave once the blinds reach him.

example: chris has a $200 bankroll. he buys in for $10 at a .05/.10 NL game leaving him with $190 bankroll and $10 at the table. now if i understand this right he leaves once that $10 reaches $20.

im not sure i agree or understand this IF the table conditions are in favor. i have played .05/.10 before and remember hitting $50 even $60 at times but would have never gotten there under those guidlines.

just curious if anyone can shed light to this subject or any feedback?

thanks

[Rookcifer]

I've heard about Chris doing this. Any idea how long it took him to do it each time?

[Scansion]

Keep playing. Some of his goofy bankroll tactics (shortstacking, etc.) are pretty ridiculous.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard about Chris doing this. Any idea how long it took him to do it each time?

[/ QUOTE ]
hitch1978 posted a link that has a lot more details, including a graph of his bankroll from April 2006 until August 2007.

It took me 6 weeks to turn a free $5 from a royal flush jackpot on a play money table (or 8 weeks if you include the time spent playing for play money) into $1000, and only a few more months to break $10k. Something that probably slowed Chris down was that he was playing tournaments for which he was clearly underbankrolled, taking shots at $1 multitable tournaments with less than $10. He also probably wasn't taking it very seriously, or putting in many hours.

Let's suppose that you play NL, and adopt a pretty conservative plan with the following statistics:

Start with $10, say from a freeroll ->
NL $2, winning 50 big blinds/100 until you hit $50 ->
NL $5, winning 30 big blinds/100 until you hit $125 ->
NL $10, winnging 20 big blinds/100 until you hit $375 ->
NL $25, winning 15 big blinds/100 until you hit $800 ->
NL $50, winning 12 big blinds/100 until you hit $2000 ->
NL $100, winning 10 big blinds/100 until you hit $5000 ->
NL $200, winning 8 big blinds/100 until you finish at $10k.

By the way, these win rates are quite conservative. A good player (below the level of Chris Ferguson) can achieve these while doing a lot of multitabling, though perhaps not the maximum.

There is a very low probability that you bust out using this schedule. How many hands does this schedule take?

Winning $40 at NL $2 is 2000 big blinds, ~ 4000 hands.
Winning $75 at NL $5 is 1500 big blinds, ~ 5000 hands.
Winning $250 at NL $10 is 2500 big blinds, ~ 12,500 hands.
Winning $425 at NL $25 is 1700 big blinds, ~ 11,500 hands.
Winning $1200 at NL $50 is 2400 big blinds, ~ 20,000 hands.
Winning $3000 at NL $100 is 3000 big blinds, ~ 30,000 hands.
Winning $5000 at NL $200 is 2500 big blinds, ~ 31,000 hands.

That totals 114,000 hands. If you get 300 hands per hour due to 4-tabling, that is 380 hours of play.

It took me less time in part because I was lucky, and made the final tables of some tournaments (for which I was properly bankrolled, unlike Chris Ferguson), and because I was less conservative and had a higher win rate, I saved some time substituting SNGs for some levels of NL, and when my bankroll hit $500 I started clearing bonuses rapidly.

[BigErf]

hitch1978 posted a link that has a lot more details, including a graph of his bankroll from April 2006 until August 2007.

where could i find this?

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
where could i find this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right here.

[Rookcifer]

pzhon,

I am new to real money play. I got $2 into my account, and have built it up over the past few days to $80. I have played about 4,500 hands in $2NL. My current win rate is about 45 ptBB/100.

Going by the formula you provided, would you suggest I stay at 2NL or move up? Considering that the level of play is better, is my risk/reward ratio improving by moving up or should I continue to win less money more consistently with less risk?

[slimbob]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning $40 at NL $2 is 2000 big blinds, ~ 4000 hands.
Winning $75 at NL $5 is 1500 big blinds, ~ 5000 hands.
Winning $250 at NL $10 is 2500 big blinds, ~ 12,500 hands.
Winning $425 at NL $25 is 1700 big blinds, ~ 11,500 hands.
Winning $1200 at NL $50 is 2400 big blinds, ~ 20,000 hands.
Winning $3000 at NL $100 is 3000 big blinds, ~ 30,000 hands.
Winning $5000 at NL $200 is 2500 big blinds, ~ 31,000 hands.

That totals 114,000 hands. If you get 300 hands per hour due to 4-tabling, that is 380 hours of play.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to start with more money to make things a lot easier. Minimum should be 500$.

You have to add time for reviewing hands, table selection and so on.

I guess the winrates are resonable but not conservative.

With 500$ and fulltime playing 100 hours a month you can do it in 3-5 month.

[hitch1978]

Here is a link about Jesus' rules.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/chris-ferguson-challenge

And here is a link to a Cardplayer article where there is some discussion on this subject. Well worth a read.

Personally there are two views on it that I can see, and which one is correct for you is a very personal decision depending on allot of factors.

There are the anti tilt, stop-loss mechanisms, and then there is the more clinical '+ev = stay and play' way. The latter is obviously the most profitable but it requires a very good handle on your mental state, and the mental states/abilitys of your opponents. I will elaborate on the latter in a second, but first a look at the former.

Many people set goals. Both positive and negative. EG. If I get down to my negative, I leave. No matter what. No questions, no regrets.

You can elaberate also, EG. If I hit my positive goal, I stay, but my negative goal and the "leave" limit is what my original positive was. That way, I still can play if winning, but do not lose any of the money I set out to win.

Example.... I sit down with $120. I set my positive at $300, negative at $20.

I go on a good run and hit $360. Well, my new negative and leave point is $300, and set my positive at $500. And so on. You never leave later kicking yourself for losing all you won and never getting mad at yourself for pulling more money out if I am on a bad run.


That is basically a stop-loss/anti tilt mechanism. If you feel that you are prone to tilt then this is 100% the way to go.

In addition, if you are playing with unfamiliar opponents that you are struggling to put into boxes, this is the way to go. If you cannot be sure that you have an edge over the feild (and we all know that the size of our stack is rarely an absolute answer to that) then it protects you from becoming a donator.

This is also the way to go if we are playing above our bankroll's safety zone, as it will stop us from spanking our B/R playing +ev poker while suffering a negative variance downswing.

The other alternative in a nutshell is -
Stay at the table so long as you can outplay the others. The minute you start getting outplayed, leave.

Here we have the '+ev = stay and play' theory in a nutshell.

The main difference is that if we are down 6 buy-ins, but we still have a positive expectation against the field, we simply reach into our wallets for another buy-in. However, while long term this method will yield higher profits, it is only capable with certain provisos.

Firstly, we have to be playing well within our B/R, to sustain our B/R through the downswings.

Secondly we have to be acutely aware of when, even though we are a better player then the rest of the field, we are suffering mentaly from a bad beat, or whatever that means the game is no longer +EV. Don't fool yourself, we all tilt. You must be capable of knowing when you do and to what degree, and most importantly, knowing when +ev has become -ev near instantly. This is not an easy skill to master.

As soon as it's possible you are not on your A game, this raises a further line of thinking.
1) Is your B game a winning game in THIS game?
2) How about your C game?
3) D? etc.
4) Am I capable of answering these questions at the table.

If your answer to 4) is no, then you shouldn't stay as soon as you have to ask 1).

[hitch1978]

Oh, ok, not allowed to post links to cardplayer? Sorry didn't know that.