Ferguson's Bankroll theory counterintuitive?

[NicGreek]

The next thing that comes in mind is how much poker is he playing or is mostly waiting for the AA,KK,QQ,AK as in a previous post and just pushing in.

Or does he "actually play" normal type of game?

Regards

[BluffTHIS!]

It is not stated that he was buying in super short and thus would not seem to be playing something like Ed Miller's short stack NL strategy. However, he might very well have just been set farming and playing only high suited cards and AK.

[NicGreek]

Was referring to this post. By SirShortStack

[ QUOTE ]
The fellow who invented this was Jim Rose. In his own words:

I worked on this game theory, just for kicks. I worked out a guaranteed way to win $28 an hour in Vegas, which is a decent living for a lot of people, but it doesn’t really interest me much. But I needed to see if it would work.

There are so many maniacs at the casino. A lot of people watch TV and think they have figured out poker because they’ve watched it for an hour. They don’t realize it’s 12 hours of shooting and they’ve edited it down to an hour. All you see is bluffs gone bad and maniac moves that go well – and that’s not real poker.

So I worked it out with millions of simulations on the computer and then went and did it for a seven month period, five days a week, and it came out at $28.64 an hour. Here’s how it works. You play the low blind games. I would say the best ones to play are the $2/$5 games. In a low blind game, a bunch of chips is not strength, it’s vulnerability – unless you’re one of the best players around (and if you’re one of the best players around you wouldn’t be playing the $2/$5 games!). Too many people want to look at a flop and anybody playing the $2/$5 has only a certain level of ability. That means that their big chip stack in front of them, if they stay there long enough, is gonna get sucked out from under them.

What is the only move a pro would make if he was on a short stack? He would go all-in if he had A-A, K-K, Q-Q or A-K. So I’ve simplified the game down to one move, because that is the move the best pro in the world would make.

So, you buy in for $140 – let everyone else have the big stacks. You sit there and wait for one of those four hands. If you’ve got a maniac to your left, you limp in and let him raise it and go all-in when it comes back to you. You’re going to see one of those combos on average once in about 43 or 44 hands. So, say you’ve blinded down to about $120. If no one calls you when you go all in, you’ll have probably picked up about forty dollars. So now you’re at $160. Then you’ll blind down another $20 or so (your original buy-in), before you get a shot at it again. If someone does call you the first time, and you win, you’re at about $240 and you’re $100 ahead, so you cash out and put your name back on the list, or walk across the street to another casino and do the same thing.

It’s just money management. You cash out and buy back in for $140 and do the same thing again. It’s foolproof. It’s chump bait, because if you’re down to $140 and there are all these big stacks, and there’s already $60 in the pot, someone’s going to call you with a KJ suited or whatever.

"Chris “Jesus” Ferguson – who’s a good friend of mine – took a dollar and turned it into $20,000 over a five-month period using my system – just for a lark in his spare time. Isn’t that funny? They’re a little tighter online than they are in Vegas, so what you want to do is play four screens at the same time, each with sixty dollars. Doing that will actually make you more money. That comes to $37 per hour and some change."

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffTHIS!]

His post giving his friend's account is the only one I've seen saying Chris was in fact buying in supershort and only playing those 4 hands, not that I am saying it is not correct.

And although that might work at the lower levels, by the time you worked your way up the ladder, you find that people were not calling those allin moves when you were first to act, and only doing so when they had raised first maybe. So my guess is that at 2/4 blinds and above the action you get will be much less and it would take much longer to make the same number of doubleups as in lower levels once they pegged you for only playing those 4 hands. In fact, with his stats of getting one of those hands every 43 hands or so, or 4 orbits, you will have paid 4x1.5bb=6bb to get that hand. You then move in on an unraised pot and drag only 1.5bb back when everyone folds. So this would seem to indicate that table selection for that super short super tight system is very important, or on a tight table you might do good to break even.

[NicGreek]

I see you point, maybe the best thing is to find a table with some really aggresive ppl that like to raise and reraise every pot or so. Guess that would make at least one of them call when you move all-in if theres enough money in the pot when you move in, say your move in makes it about 1.5 x pot bet?

[Redred]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the only move a pro would make if he was on a short stack? He would go all-in if he had A-A, K-K, Q-Q or A-K. So I’ve simplified the game down to one move, because that is the move the best pro in the world would make.

So, you buy in for $140 – let everyone else have the big stacks. You sit there and wait for one of those four hands. If you’ve got a maniac to your left, you limp in and let him raise it and go all-in when it comes back to you. You’re going to see one of those combos on average once in about 43 or 44 hands. So, say you’ve blinded down to about $120. If no one calls you when you go all in, you’ll have probably picked up about forty dollars. So now you’re at $160. Then you’ll blind down another $20 or so (your original buy-in), before you get a shot at it again. If someone does call you the first time, and you win, you’re at about $240 and you’re $100 ahead, so you cash out and put your name back on the list, or walk across the street to another casino and do the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that this system is viable. The money management is ok, but the play is not going to produce the money to sustain your play.
1. The avg value of those 4 hands is about 25% or a winning rate of 1/4. The system recommand to play all-in every time you get one, so you have to have 4+ time your bet to make enough money to cover your lost on the non winner. You might be able to do it with 3+ time if you had the ones you win uncontested.
2. You get those hands about one every 43 hands on avg. If you play live, you might get to play 30 hands per hours at best. You will sit at a table for about an hour and a half to play one hand that you have to win by going all-in and you don't think that the other players are going to notice you comming alive, not likely.

This is a nice theory but I can't see anybody making money playing it, not even Jesus, the real one this time.

[NicGreek]

To bad Chris "Jesus" Ferguson couldnt drop in and give as the answers we are looking to hear.

[AmonRaa]

Sorry to reply to an old thread but there is no way that playing only these premium hands achieves results. As a NL newbie I'm playing NL25 and see shortstacks who wants to double by going all in preflop with kings and aces all the time. I just stay clear of them. And if I notice this on NL25 you can be sure every1 notices on higher levels.

[Off Duty]

You'd be supprised at what calls in a multiway pot.

You'd be further suprised at how many players don't pay attention.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I was listening to a podcast where Jesus was talking about how he turned a dollar into 20,000. He said he used a bankroll strategy where he would never bring more than 5% of his bankroll in play, and as soon as he had an amoubt equalling 10% of his bankroll, he would fold and immediately leave that table, bringing 5% to a new table.

This sounds counterintuitive to me, like a (what's the opposite of stop loss?). I always figured Jesus to be a pretty smart guy, so what are the merits of his bankroll strategy?

I've always been taught not to place artificial limits on when to stop play, and to only stop if I'm tired, the game's no longer good, and a few other reasons that don't have anything to do with how much money you currently have on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read most of the rest of the thread.

The reason why stop-losses/stop-wins are normally wrong is that they don't actually do anything. Meaning that if you stop-loss today and go back and play the same game tomorrow, you can't possibly be reducing your variance or increasing your winrate this way. You do prevent yourself from losing above X amount in one day, or increase the chances of a winning session vs. a losing one, but in the long run both of these things are meaningless.

This bankroll management scheme is different because it reduces variance, which does mean something finanically. Reducing variance at the expense of EV is generally wrong, but only if you have a large enough bankroll that you can handle the variance. In this case Ferguson was emphasizing moving up ASAP, playing at limits he was technically underrolled for, so it was worth it to reduce variance so he could continue to play at higher limits without risking going broke.