$27 bankroll

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

2 buyins!!?!?!
man youre a lucky mf.

Seriously I regularly drop 2/3 buy ins on people hitting some odd hand on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I regularly drop 2/3 buy-ins also. The thing is I never had all my $ in play and when I was playing very short I always had $20 or $50 HU sngs running. For me the competition at this level of sng is very weak. I can usually win these things they don't take very long to play. If I lost money in a cash game over a period of time there was a good chance that I would have HU sngs profits to compensate. To make an analogy to investing - cash games were the risky part of my portfolio with a high return, while the HU sngs were the low variance low return part. I can't get the high return on the HU sngs because once I get to the $100 level my edge with respect to the other players decreases substantially.

Lucky

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you can win at a good rate somewhere you should be aggressive about taking shots. If you lose what you set aside for your shot, just drop back down and play where you know you can win. Rinse and repeat. There is nothing to be gained by grinding away at $10NL when you can beat it and have roll to take some shots. The experience of playing with better players and comfort you gain by playing at high stakes is more significant that any temporary loss in funds (as long as you don't completely busto).

Lucky

[Donkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[GermanGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should also keep in mind that bankroll doesn't mean the same for everyone. If you just bet that you can turn x amount into y in a specific time. X is not your bankroll. You can always reload with the rest of what really is you bankroll...

The situation that is described here sounds a little like that. Additionally you could be in other situations where "aggressive bankroll management" can be correct. Let's say you just a big part of your bankroll because you had to turn it into non-poker money for some reason. If have played 400NL before and now have only 1000$ left you could try to start at 100NL, because you are fairly confident that you can beat it, especially if you are able to reload.

However as this is a beginner's forum I think this is horrible advice and so I agree with Donkenstein. Just wanted to explain, so that a beginner would be able to judge for himself