PLO8 Bankroll Requirements

[Mendacious]

I have seen various things on this subject, but below is my view on the proper bankroll requirements (for a semi-tight aggressive PL08 player at various levels. Feel free to add your comments.

The site bankroll is more of a guideline than a rule, and mostly has to do with having enough to sit and play on a site and deal with reasonable variance and play through it at a favorable table(s).

[TxRedMan]

the biggest down swing i've ever had in O8 was something like 100 BB's....

i keep 200 BB's in my party account.

also, i win, so that helps, too.

[Kuso]

[ QUOTE ]
the biggest down swing i've ever had in O8 was something like 100 BB's....

i keep 200 BB's in my party account.

also, i win, so that helps, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

so the most you've ever lost is a stack?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Kuso]

it sounds like you're saying 20 buy-ins for a "full buy-in player" and 5 buy-ins for the site. i think this is a good plan for a player who is winning 0-5 ptbbs/100, but maybe a bit tight for players who win at a better clip.

personally, for me, i'd play at any level up to 400 comfortably with 15 buy-ins at the games i play. i've never gone on a downswing of more than 4 buy-ins (not counting goofing off at the 25s and 50s). it also helps that i am fairly certain that i'm a 10ptbb/100 winner or better at these levels. since my playing style has changed (for the better, i think) throughout the development of my HH DB, i can't say that with any degree of mathematical certainty -- but circumstantial evidence supports it. anyway, if you sit in a really aggressive game (seems to be rare below 600 or 1000), then the 20 buy-in rule is probably a lot safer.

while i definitely don't have the data or experience to support it, i would think that the 20 buy-in rule is really good for the 1000s and 2000s due to the fact that the games are more aggressive -- that is, fewer limped pots pre-flop and fewer free showdowns and free cards for your marginal hands and draws. in fact, i might even bump up the buy-in requirement for these stakes as a long-term goal (e.g., 50 buy-ins) to make sure that you never have to move down. that being said, i think it's safe to start playing at 20.

i should suppose that i should add a caveat that i'd be willing to move down in stakes if i went on a really bad run. with 20 buy-ins, i doubt this would ever be necessary (i.e., i would always have at least 10 buy-ins).


thanks for the post.

[Luckless57]

I'm glad someone who has moved up through the levels has put a chart up like this. I've been thinking of moving up from the $50 tables on party to the $100 tables with a roll of about $3700. I don't check this board all too frequently and from what I've read before I thought everyone advised having 40x the buy-in to move up. The few times I've played on the $100 tables they've seemed very weak and they offer a larger table selection.

A question I have to anyone who will answer is, how long did it take you to move up past each level? I'm guessing around the $400 level is where a lot of people hit a plateau.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
it sounds like you're saying 20 buy-ins for a "full buy-in player" and 5 buy-ins for the site. i think this is a good plan for a player who is winning 0-5 ptbbs/100, but maybe a bit tight for players who win at a better clip.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that if your winrate was over 5 bb/100s at these levels you would be MORE likely to have higher variance and need a bigger roll.

I can tell you from recent personal experience that it is possible to get get your money in in very good shape 10 times in a row and get blanked-- if you are a remotely aggressive player. (Not to mention sometimes when you are in worse shape than you thought).

The bankroll increments that I am suggesting are not guarantees that you will not have to move down or even that you won't go bust (obviously you have to be a winning player at each level in order to avoid eventually going bust) but the point is that I think that this is sufficient funding for each level to avoid typical variance such that you are not playing with scared money.

I think that these are reasonable bankroll levels to move up, or just as importantly, to move down if you are running poorly.

[Mendacious]

I would recommend spending about 2-3 months at each level.

[davebreal]

[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend getting lucky at each level.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kuso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it sounds like you're saying 20 buy-ins for a "full buy-in player" and 5 buy-ins for the site. i think this is a good plan for a player who is winning 0-5 ptbbs/100, but maybe a bit tight for players who win at a better clip.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you from recent personal experience that it is possible to get get your money in in very good shape 10 times in a row and get blanked-- if you are a remotely aggressive player. (Not to mention sometimes when you are in worse shape than you thought).



[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is a key point, and this is the "running worse than you ever thought possible" point for plo8 players. it's one that i haven't hit yet.

anyway, my response was a drunken rambling post that in a bizarre way said that i pretty much agree with you. i hope you and others see it that way.

[gergery]

I agree with your bankroll guidelines with TWO important caveats

1) I recommend aggressively taking shots.
ie. your table says you need $8k to play $400 level, but need $12k to play the $600 level. So if your're a winning $400 player, then jump up and take a shot at $600 as soon as you have 2-3 buyins (ie. $9200-9800). if you lose it, drop back down when you hit $8k and repeat.

2) These are numbers with a fairly high risk of ruin, since a guy winning at say 8PTBB/100 should lose 20 buyins VERY infrequently (just use StdDev and excel to figure out an exact %), and even if he got close, he could drop down in stakes per #1 above. But most people have day jobs and risk of ruin in reality means, "I'm bummed, but still have zero problems paying my bills and can easily reload"

Net, your numbers are extremely conservative for most people. It more psychological than finacial for many.

I have never regretted moving up stakes too fast. But I have regretted not moving back down fast enough on occasion.
-g