How many Buyins is your HU SNG bankroll?

[ChicagoRy]

To all the 10 buyin br ppl...

What's the end goal here? Do you just hope to run super hot until you hit 50k and then cash some out or take shots at Genius or something?

I'm not saying it's not a good plan, but it seems most of the 10 buyin people haven't gotten further than the 55s before giving themselves more of a bankroll. What's the end game here with this 10 buyin plan?

[wrkingtobegreat]

This is for people who just really enjoy gambling/moving up. I've turned around 20 bucks into over a thousand playing HUSNGs in a VERY short amount of time (like a day or two) numerous times, then lost a significant portion of my bankroll, not moved down in limits, and tilted it all away. I'm working on my self-discipline and mastering my need to gamble, as well as trying to correct other personal attributes that may lead to this behavior. Maybe that style is personal and exaggerated in me, but I think most people that do this are similar to some extent.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the end game here with this 10 buyin plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i voted 20, but it was 10 until i reached the 100s.

[/ QUOTE ]

To get through the lower levels ASAP. I slowed down a little going into 50s, and a lot going into 100s. There is no reason for any winning player who is trying to move up to play <50s with more than 10 buyins, and doing so leaves a TON of value on the table.

[abcjnich]

Anyone who plays with 10bi at any level is an idiot. If you're smart enough to beat the game w/ a good WR then you should also be smart enough to know decent bankroll management.

[tmcdmck]

jesus do you understand aggressive bankrolling? i saw a long mathematical post explaining why if you have a half decent winrate and are prepared to move down, a 7.5 buy in bankroll is optimal. the ignorance and misplaced condescention of that post just tilted me a little. hell i think the bankroll post is stickyed. not all of us are nits terrified of busto/ lower limits.

[sonneti]

Started with £100 playing the £10 games and I'm up to £410 now... should probably move up but I enjoy crushing the games so much I just don't want to leave.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

i could never do 20 or 30 for that matter.

Right now im waiting another month or so to move up to the 100s. i don't know if i want 100buyins or ill do it with 50 but anything less would make me extremely uncomfortable.

I just don't think 20 is right. 10 is completely ridiculous. I consider myself a good player and I had a 13 game losing streak in the 50s. if i was doing the 20 buy in rule it would have been pretty damn difficult to deal with that.

[PLO8FaceKilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Started with £100 playing the £10 games and I'm up to £410 now... should probably move up but I enjoy crushing the games so much I just don't want to leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

why don't you move up when you get to 500.
if you don't like that wait until you get to 1k.

there's nothing wrong with that and if you do it right you won't ever go broke.

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]
jesus do you understand aggressive bankrolling? i saw a long mathematical post explaining why if you have a half decent winrate and are prepared to move down, a 7.5 buy in bankroll is optimal. the ignorance and misplaced condescention of that post just tilted me a little. hell i think the bankroll post is stickyed. not all of us are nits terrified of busto/ lower limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

An optimal bankroll amount can be answered mathematically using the Kelly criterion . This says that if your win-rate is p and your odds on the wager is v-to-1 , then we should risk :

f=[p*(v+1) - p]/v where v in this case is 1/1.05 or about 0.95

So this tells us that there is no fixed optimal number since we're dealing with a variable win rate . However , your optimal bankroll can be determined if we know your long term win rate and the odds received on the wager . For instance , if p =58% and v~ 0.95 , then we should be willing to risk

f=[0.58*(1.95) -1 ]/0.95
f= 13.7% or about 13% of our bankroll on the wager . Many players use half-Kelly or about 13.7%/2 = 6.8% to avoid fluctuations in their bankroll while at the same time maintaining a strong growth rate .

[tmcdmck]

plo8, i think we just have different priorities: i am very much a risk taker, and i will maximise risk if it maximises reward without hesitation. yeah the downswings SUCK, but the upswings are spectacular too. and remember, if you are moving down when your br takes a hit, a 13 bi downswing may well leave you with a bigger bankroll with the 10bi rule than it would with a 100 buy in rule; the upswings would pay for such swings.

like stu ungar: he was crap a folding, but he was so good at calling and betting that he could afford to double people up much more frequently than everyone else.

having said that the downswing suck so so hard (am at the bottom of one at the mo), and at such times i do wish i bankrolled conservatively. but then i think of the times i have doubled my bankroll in a day.