the bankroll rule of thumb

[Abbaddabba]

What was it about what he said that would lead you to believe he doesnt know what he's talking about?


To be a winner live and to have a 50 buyin downswing; that's hilarious for the mid stakes.

Unless we include marginal winners likee 0.5BB/100, which are really losers in my mind considering the time they waste making about minimum wage and being forced to spend your hours with the dregs of society.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
What was it about what he said that would lead you to believe he doesnt know what he's talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not even talking about this one specific topic - you can draw your own conclusions & give him as much credibility as you like.

[Abbaddabba]

if you're calling him out in this thread, there must've been a reason.

i dont care either way. i just want to know what he said that was suspicious.

[Aniki72]

A lot of people can beat a certain level and then calculate what they'd make playing 10x the stakes... i assume this is nonsense - but what are the main reasons why people shouldn't jump stakes to such a degree?

[rogue8]

people who play lowstakes say the variance is really high bc of the poor play, highstakes players say the variance is high bc the edge is lower. so does that mean middlestakes is the most consitent?

[bbartlog]

If you play micros, you might even want 50+ buyins.

I would dispute the idea that you need *more* buyins when playing microlimits, at least in no-limit or pot-limit games. That might be true if your edge didn't increase as you dropped down, but as a practical matter any good player's edge at microlimits will be huge. By way of empirical example, I play microlimit PLO8 and my win rates look sort of like this:
.02/.05 - 35BB/100 (only 2K hands, may not be maintainable)
.10/.25 - 14BB/100 (20K+ hands)
.25/.50 - 3BB/100 (5K hands)
.50/1.00 - loser, -7BB/100 over 2K or so hands, hopefully just variance but who knows

I realize I don't have the 60K+ hands needed to be certain of the stats, but the winrates reflect my own perceptions of the relative difficulty of the games as I move up. Probably seems a little silly to someone who plays 30/60 that there is any difference in difficulty between .10/.25 and .25/.50, but it's definitely there.
Anyway, the point is that unless you play rather badly I think you can get by with fewer buyins at microlimits; the increased winrate should dwarf any increase in variance you experience.

[bbartlog]

A lot of people can beat a certain level and then calculate what they'd make playing 10x the stakes... i assume this is nonsense

You assume correctly. It's a safe bet that at ten times the stakes, the game will be much tougher, no matter what the original stakes were.

I have at least 22max buy ins for 6max NL, and IMO it seems to little sometimes. 7 buy in downswings are common. I think more is required when moving up in stakes.

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
people who play lowstakes say the variance is really high bc of the poor play, highstakes players say the variance is high bc the edge is lower. so does that mean middlestakes is the most consitent?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it means that unsuccessful low stakes players are constantly looking for ways of excusing their failure.

[Ace7777]

you need anywhere from 21 x the max bet to 50 x the max bet to win the game, you need 10 x to stay in the game for a while and hope that you win big.