Why You Shouldnt Play HUSNG with 20 Buyins - Page 8

ChicagoRy · #71 10-19-2007, 02:36 AM

Good post snorer but it seems more people are advocating the 10-30 buyin stuff rather than the 50+ in this thread.

BCM11 · #72 10-19-2007, 03:05 AM

agree with what he said.

jay_shark · #73 10-19-2007, 07:45 AM

It seems like the minority are advocating playing with less than 20 buy-ins assuming your willingness to move up or down and the majority think it's correct to play with 30+ buy-ins .

Your bankroll becomes stagnant if you wait too long before you move up in limits . In fact if some people are advocating playing with 30-50 buy-ins , then I'm curious how much they would advocate playing in mtt's . Many of the pros advocate having at least 100 buy-ins for a moderate size mtt , so it doesn't make any sense to suggest having 30-50 buy-ins for heads up sng's .

WutRUTryin2Hit · #74 10-19-2007, 02:47 PM

The OP that lists reasons you shouldn't play with 20 buyins should actually be called "reasons you should not be a pro" or at least "things you have to fix before you can be really successful". They aren't bankroll-related things, they're just standard psychological leaks, and (I guess snorer pointed this out in his excellent post), if you can't handle the pain of losing often, in painful ways, HU SNGs are probably not for you.

Bankroll requirements can be calculated mathematically, as some people here have been doing using the Kelly criterion. I don't know how this formula works yet, (I did see that book about it the other day and almost bought it), but I do know how to calculate BR needs/risk of ruin for cash games, and there's obviously a mathematical method for SNGs/tourneys as well, I just don't know where to get the right numbers offhand in PT. So people can sit and argue "you need 20!" and "you need 100!" for hours, but it's a solvable thing, you just plug in your winrate and standard deviation into a formula and decide what risk of ruin you want, and ta-da. If you are a casual player who has a job and deposited $100 to play, you can (and should imo) choose a much higher risk of ruin and build up more aggressively than a pro who has built up a bigger bankroll but can not lose it or they'll have to go get a real job. My guess is that 10 buyins will result in a pretty low risk of ruin for anyone with a decent winrate, and 20 should be more than enough.

I'm rambling. This thread got my goat a bit. Snorer is right, there is a lot of bad advice in this forum. I hope not too many people from this forum are coaching just based on the fact they post here and lot and play higher than the average player here. I sharkscoped someone here a short while ago who was winning $7/game at 55s, then moved up to 110s and now makes $3/game.. but still plays them as their reg. game. It's stuff like this that makes me not take a lot of bankroll/other advice as seriously in this forum.

daveT · #75 10-19-2007, 03:08 PM

Snorer, anyone who makes 150 posts over three years has my respect; you must not waste your time writing useless words.

I agree with all of the thoughts in this thread. For me, my hugest leak in poker, as life, is too much adventuring. It is very hard for certain players (TNixon) to stay at a small level that is easily beaten. It does our minds better to build our bank-rolls aggressively. Rather than dodge this tendency, I moved over to HUSNGs because of it's high yield and small bankroll requirements. I think others here share this thinking. It is all in the plan.

cwar · #76 10-19-2007, 04:40 PM

I actually agree with a lot of what snorer said although his comments did seem to be a bit targeted at me (the coaching part). I intended this article to be for the majority of players and I assumed the majority never really intended to go pro, correctly or incorrectly thats how I intended it. If you go back and read my OP you will see the points I used to say you shouldnt play with 20 buyins are targeted mostly at players who are newer (ego, tilt, psychological roll, learning).

ChicagoRy · #77 10-19-2007, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm rambling. This thread got my goat a bit. Snorer is right, there is a lot of bad advice in this forum. I hope not too many people from this forum are coaching just based on the fact they post here and lot and play higher than the average player here. I sharkscoped someone here a short while ago who was winning $7/game at 55s, then moved up to 110s and now makes $3/game.. but still plays them as their reg. game. It's stuff like this that makes me not take a lot of bankroll/other advice as seriously in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made more per game in the 33s than I do in the 110s over my sample sizes (albeit not big enough for true samples, but whoever your example is for 55-110 probably doesn't have the right sample size either).

Stats over small samples can only tell you a certain amount. My ROI in 33s turbos is 25%, my ROI in 55s is 17% and my ROI in 110s is 4%. Does that mean I ran super hot in the earlier levels but now I'm running bad? Maybe. You don't really know until you've played a ton of games at every level, but I know I'm a winner in the 110s so I keep playing them. I've felt that I've ran bad in them overall, but I don't have any specific stats that I could present to prove this. So I keep playing them and work to build my bankroll and improve my game and when I'm confident I'm a 10% winner in this level I'll probably move up to the 220s, not because my bankroll is x buyins, but because I don't want to deal with 2-4% roi variance at such a low buyin.

As for comments about coaching, I'm not positive who that's directed towards, it doesn't fit anybody I know of in this forum as far as ROI/comments go, but I know at least a few low limit players who would be worth 35-50 bucks an hour to many players.

It's not a question of bankroll or game selection advice, it's about plugging leaks and making good decisions. I wouldn't play 50 bucks an hour for somebody to tell me how to manage my bankroll, top players have had different opinions about this and I think it's a fairly personal thing, you pay for strategy advice and a few 50 dollar sessions from somebody who is a stronger player than you can do wonders for your game.

TNixon · #78 10-27-2007, 06:44 PM

For what it's worth, I totally chickened out on my 10 buyin rule once my bankroll crossed $1k.

I started mixing in $100s at around $1200, played primarily $50s with the occasional table-selected $100 up to about $1600 or $1700, then dropped the third table, and started sitting first in both a $100 and a $50 at the same time. So far so good, and I just crossed $2k.

There's not really as much hypocrisy going on here as it sounds like though, since I have attempted to point out every time I've said that 20-30 buyins is too many, that comfort and confidence are far more important than any buyin advancement rule.

My comfort level just happens to be somewhere around the $50-$100 level, since that's the last level I played successfully.

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

ChicagoRy · #79 10-27-2007, 06:46 PM

As you continue to improve, however, your comfort level will increase.

I remember a time earlier this year when my comfort level was 11 dollar games. Now it's whatever game a fish is sitting at that I'm rolled for. Sitting first my comfort level is whatever I make the most hourly for.

jay_shark · #80 10-27-2007, 07:02 PM

Tnixon , your buy-in rule should increase gradually as you face tougher competition . You may be able to get away with 10 buy-ins at the lower stakes , but you should be willing to increase the total a few notches with each new level .

I think 10 buy-ins at the 100's is a bit risky for several reasons :

1) You may be a losing player at this level if you haven't played enough at the lower levels .

2) It's more likely that your win rate will be in the 50's than in the 60's .

3) Your kelly requirements do change with each new level since your win rate should be lower . So if 10-buy-ins is the minimum for the 20's then it should not be for the 30's .