Bankroll Management: Low Stakes

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that if I see a juicy NL200 table with 3 idiots on a Friday night that I can't risk $200 of my 3k+ as long as I follow the guideline of stepping back down?

There is certainly a difference between that type of "taking a shot" and spending a certain numbers of hours/hands at the level to try it out and see how you do type of thing. Perhaps that is more of what you are suggesting with the $4k+ figure?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess on a Friday night it is different, but I was thinking that you meant moving up and then moving back down if you lost like 5 buyins. When I take a shot it is usually just moving up completely with a willingness to move back down if necessary.

[Berge20]

That's a good point though. I'll go back and clarify that more and perhaps add something about taking a more permanent shot to test the level.

[TheProdigy]

I moved up to 200nl with like 8k, lol.

Moved up to 400nl with 20.

I am bankroll nit, but with the amt of time I have I have 0 reason to have any risk of ruin.

[diebitter]

Eh, when 1- or 2-tabling, I have much finer edge moveup.

I do as you suggest at nl50 and below, but once at about 1.3K, I'll move into nl100 unless I fall back to 1K in BR, then it's back to nl50. At about 1.6K, I'll move into nl200, and any drops, I'll go back to nl50 at about 1.2K.

But like I say, that's really only for 1 or 2 tabling, and you need to be able to easily drop without any issues at all to do this sort of thing - and that includes immediately closing tables the second you fall under the limits, because at that edge, it's easily major BR damage if you stick in them past the time you drop below your levels.

[1dentifier]

I moved up to 200nl with a 20ish buyin bankroll and this happens:



Right at the bottom I nearly moved back down to 100nl with a 30 buyin roll, but was too stuburn to do so. I spose I'm just posting this to illustrate out what a bitch variance can be when you're hovering around 20 buyins.

[Berge20]

How else can we improve upon this? I'd like to add it to the FAQ.

[illini43]

I think a distinction should be made in regards to the "shot-taking" line. This depends greatly on how many tables someone normally plays. If you follow the rules Berge has listed above for taking shots, you can slowly add in tables of the higher limit.

For example, lets take the 50NL example and someone 8-tables. When you get to $1,500 and feel comfortable, add a table of 100NL into your mix when you play and if you keep grinding out a profit, slowly add more tables until eventually you are at your baseline for the next level and are plaiying that level almost exclusively.

Ideally, when your bankroll gets to the next 'baseline' you will be around the point where you are playing all of that level on your tables, but this isn't necessary.

In the example I used, you can still be playing 4 tables of 50NL and 4 tables of 100NL if you have reached the baseline of $2,000 for 100NL.

All in all, good bankroll management should use these for what they are: guidelines. Each person has a different comfort level when playing; some might be comfortable playing with 20 buy-ins for a level and others might need 40+. Only you can decide where you should be at before you move up, but these are excellent guidelines if you aren't really sure what to do.

[checkmate36]

Thanks Berge for taking the time. This should be added to the FAQ.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
How else can we improve upon this? I'd like to add it to the FAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post.

I would add an explicit warning that you should never move up to win back losses when encountering a losing streak.

You basically say as much with the excellent advice regarding a bottom floor BR at which you move down a level, but the Psych forum is usually full of dudes who moved up to win back losses and ended up in credit card debt.

The only cure for running bad is to move DOWN before you blow most of your roll, and then grind your BR back at the lower level.

Finally, I wouldn't refer to yourself in the 3rd person. You sound a little like sup bro recounting how he was never tackeled for a loss of yardage.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
How else can we improve upon this? I'd like to add it to the FAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]


You should really be taking into account winrates when you size your BR in addition to variance (BB/100).

If you dip into the probability forum, they'd likely be able to give you much better guidelines. Though there are some pysch factors that play in (you run bad, you start to play bad... lose control of your game... etc etc)

Maybe add in a: "Play the highest level you're bankrolled for and think you are a winner" disclaimer as well?