how does this bankroll plan sound?

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds fine. IIRC the bankroll requirements for a decent player are 10 buy-ins for 10NL, 15 buy-ins for 25NL and 20 buy-ins for anything higher than that. You're clear of that here; going conservative is a good route if you don't have a ton of experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes wonder how long it's been since some of the PBs and other higher # posters have played 10NL. I think that maybe those stakes have gotten a little tougher since they worked through it? 10 Buyins is far too low. I'm in the middle of a downswing where if I only had $100 to start I'd be feeling quite quite nervous.

And players need not be "decent" to be safe. Many talk about how easy the "donks" at these levels are, but even if they call you AI w/ only 20% equity, the hero (whether decent, good, or great) will face more variance than if the villain had the good sense to fold when he was behind, and the pot was scooped with no risk.

I think that 20 is still a good number to start 10NL with, and more is better. I'd hazard a guess that it's the same w/ 25NL.

OP, I think your plan looks pretty solid (at least the first few stages).

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder how long it's been since some of the PBs and other higher # posters have played 10NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing 10NL now, though with a lot more than ten buy-ins (I'm a little short for 25NL). I honestly do feel that the 20 buy-in rule is way too conservative down at the lower levels, though obviously, more buy-ins would be safer and safer is better when you're starting out.

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes wonder how long it's been since some of the PBs and other higher # posters have played 10NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing 10NL now, though with a lot more than ten buy-ins (I'm a little short for 25NL). I honestly do feel that the 20 buy-in rule is way too conservative down at the lower levels, though obviously, more buy-ins would be safer and safer is better when you're starting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

touche'

[Nightlight87]

It was only a reply stating a different opinion to yours? And I agree with it, I think 20 BIs is conservative for at 10NL I started playing it when I had 10BIs and have worked up to 20.

But that was mainly because at 2NL-5Nl the stakes were too low and I found it hard to concentrate and take the game seriously.

[TheLemonShark]

Don't even think about cashing out any money until you've reached atleast NL100, even then you should problaby keep it in your roll unless you need the money desperately.

Also, I wouldn't play the HU tables as low as NL50, the rake is horrific, and the variance is much greater than 6-max tables. If you want to work on your HU game play HU sngs.

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't even think about cashing out any money until you've reached atleast NL100, even then you should problaby keep it in your roll unless you need the money desperately.

Also, I wouldn't play the HU tables as low as NL50, the rake is horrific, and the variance is much greater than 6-max tables. If you want to work on your HU game play HU sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second all of these notions. I played mostly 50NL this summer and I DID withdraw to pay bills and such, and I pretty much never had enough time to totally build it back up. I mean it would get almost built back up, but I couldn't get any extra profit out of the venture. Basically when you can 4-table 200NL, you probably make enough for bills+profit, such that even when you withdraw your bankroll still improves nicely for it.

[Wardfish]

Yes, I have still withdrawn after a losing month.

I'm not perfect on this discipline, btw. I have trashed a few bankrolls in my past, by moving up and chasing losses.

I believe it is a good thing to make some sort of withdrawal, because we are actually trying to win money (ie. spendable money, not paper/internet/theoretical money).

I am keen to make some withdrawals because many times in the last 5 years I have run my BR up relatively high before dumping it off at higher stakes after some bad beats. I'm happy to say that I once cashed out a decent chunk after a lucky session when chasing losses, and spent the money on a platinum/diamond engagement ring for my girlfriend (now wife).

Making withdrawals obviously slows down the BR-building process, but it would be a shame to apply the 'Peter Principle' and carry the plankton's money up to the sharks, without actually hanging on to any of it ourselves.

[SellingtheDrama]

The big problem (this is from personal experience) with withdrawaling regularly is that it makes it harder to move up in stakes.

The obvious goal for us as serious poker players is to make as much money as possible. The question though is - over what time frame are we defining this?

For some people it is a short run - they want the money to pay for nice things or even bills.

For some people it is over their lifetime - IMO to do this, the best way is to deny yourself the rewards in the short run, and keep the money in the bankroll to push yourself up through the levels to the point where you are make serious money.

This also is a question of ambition - some people want to be one of the best in the world and play in the 300/600 NL games. To do this, you need to focus your money on bankroll building moreso than if you are just having fun and 50NL is enough for you.