100 buyin brm... your thoughts

[mephisto]

Got any comments bldswtrs? Gaucho credited you in that vid as being the mastermind behind the 100 BI strategy. I know you read 2p2 regularly.

[G_Dollaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is out of control. Almost all people here saying "100 buyins is good!" are just plain bullshitting. I can promise you that 99.9% of people in here saying they want 100 buyins for a level would move down after if not 20, then 30 buyins. So, what does this mean? It means they are AT MOST playing with 30 buyins, and the 70 in excess are of no interest at all really. Unless you do not plan to move down even after you are down 60 buyins or whatever, then 100 buyins is just plain [censored].

Yes, people can have their 100 buyins to feel "safe" or whatever, but it has nothing to do with actual bankroll calculations, and thus it's only a preference of their own.

Since that is the case, recommending anyone else to "use 100 buyins" is just retarded given it's only something you've set for yourself in terms of what you feel "secure" with networth-wise, if you are moving down when running bad, then you are not playing with 100 buyins, and this is basically true for almost everyone.

Stop this BS, and learn that people claiming to use 100 buyins are in reality using a 20bi stoploss and thus playing actively with only 20 buyins, never to touch the other 80 on the same limit.

You are all free to have this kind of mental cusion, but stop recommending it to everyone else when it has no mathematical foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is neccesarily right. I have gone on a 40 buy in downswing @ the 2/4, and I play 10-12 tables, so that's 52 buy in's I needed right there if I was comfortable hitting rock bottom. I'm also one of the biggest winners @ the 2/4 on stars, so you take someone who's winning @ a smaller clip that plays as many tables and I can see needing around 100 buy in's. Better safe than sorry IMO....

[FlyingStart]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is out of control. Almost all people here saying "100 buyins is good!" are just plain bullshitting. I can promise you that 99.9% of people in here saying they want 100 buyins for a level would move down after if not 20, then 30 buyins. So, what does this mean? It means they are AT MOST playing with 30 buyins, and the 70 in excess are of no interest at all really. Unless you do not plan to move down even after you are down 60 buyins or whatever, then 100 buyins is just plain [censored].

Yes, people can have their 100 buyins to feel "safe" or whatever, but it has nothing to do with actual bankroll calculations, and thus it's only a preference of their own.

Since that is the case, recommending anyone else to "use 100 buyins" is just retarded given it's only something you've set for yourself in terms of what you feel "secure" with networth-wise, if you are moving down when running bad, then you are not playing with 100 buyins, and this is basically true for almost everyone.

Stop this BS, and learn that people claiming to use 100 buyins are in reality using a 20bi stoploss and thus playing actively with only 20 buyins, never to touch the other 80 on the same limit.

You are all free to have this kind of mental cusion, but stop recommending it to everyone else when it has no mathematical foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using an investment plan that regularly runs the risk of losing more than 50% of your networth is ok I think when you are moving up. Your bankroll is probably relatively small compared to your future networth, and you can redeposit or rebuild fairly easily.

But if your bankroll is lifechanging money that you dont want to lose, this sort of investment plan has way too much variance imo. Atleast for my own case I dont ever want to risk losing more than 20% of my networth.

[punter11235]

It depends what you consider bankroll.
If you have 30xbuyins for a level and thats all money you have in life then its pretty scary.
If you have 20xbuyins and play 10/20 but have another 200k in savings then its more than ok because you can move down at will and last if you wont cashout for a month or two.
As usual.. there is no "ok" level. Maybe your priority in life is to get excited then everything over 15 is pathetic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
And for "Mr Safe" out there its better to be at 150bi.
If you ask about personal preference I feel I am gambooling when playing at a level for which I have less than 100bi online.

[sh58]

[ QUOTE ]
Play with however many buy-ins you want, just be prepared to move down faster if you play with less. Personally I think people are crazy who lose 20+ buy-ins at a single limit without moving down. And if you're not gonna let yourself lose that many buy-ins before moving down, why have such a ridiculously huge roll in the first place?

I prefer playing with a shorter roll. First I think it makes me play a little better since the stakes matter more, and second if I'm on a big downswing, I'm probably better off moving down for a while anyways.

I also cash out frequently and don't really consider that part of my "bankroll" per se. I play for a living, and therefore I think I need a big cushion for living expenses, etc. If online poker died tomorrow, I could live for probably 2-3+ years without significantly altering my lifestyle with no income, even if my online money was unavailable. This is important to me, and for that reason I don't think of my offline money as bankroll. I'd rather move way down than redeposit - and if that happened there's probably a reason I lost that much money in the first place that redepositing wouldn't fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a good post

[LearnedfromTV]

Playing at a level that makes your net worth at least 100 buyins is smart for anyone with real expenses (that is, anyone out of college). It's also reasonable for someone with few expenses but a normal risk tolerance. Putting your entire net worth into a 30 buyin bankroll is extremely risky relative to the way the average financially intelligent person allocates wealth. This doesn't make it wrong, just like investing in lots of volatile stocks isn't necessarily wrong.

Holding 100 buyins in a poker account, or a box at the Bellagio, or anywhere else where it doesn't earn interest, is dumb, with the possible exception of leaving money in a poker site that may be hard to deposit to, especially if you expect to move up soon. Calling 100 buyins your "poker bankroll" as though you should ever go through 100 buyins without moving down multiple times is dumb.

[catcher193]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Play with however many buy-ins you want, just be prepared to move down faster if you play with less. Personally I think people are crazy who lose 20+ buy-ins at a single limit without moving down. And if you're not gonna let yourself lose that many buy-ins before moving down, why have such a ridiculously huge roll in the first place?

I prefer playing with a shorter roll. First I think it makes me play a little better since the stakes matter more, and second if I'm on a big downswing, I'm probably better off moving down for a while anyways.

I also cash out frequently and don't really consider that part of my "bankroll" per se. I play for a living, and therefore I think I need a big cushion for living expenses, etc. If online poker died tomorrow, I could live for probably 2-3+ years without significantly altering my lifestyle with no income, even if my online money was unavailable. This is important to me, and for that reason I don't think of my offline money as bankroll. I'd rather move way down than redeposit - and if that happened there's probably a reason I lost that much money in the first place that redepositing wouldn't fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a good post

[/ QUOTE ]

[FlyingStart]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing at a level that makes your net worth at least 100 buyins is smart for anyone with real expenses (that is, anyone out of college). It's also reasonable for someone with few expenses but a normal risk tolerance. Putting your entire net worth into a 30 buyin bankroll is extremely risky relative to the way the average financially intelligent person allocates wealth. This doesn't make it wrong, just like investing in lots of volatile stocks isn't necessarily wrong.

Holding 100 buyins in a poker account, or a box at the Bellagio, or anywhere else where it doesn't earn interest, is dumb, with the possible exception of leaving money in a poker site that may be hard to deposit to, especially if you expect to move up soon. Calling 100 buyins your "poker bankroll" as though you should ever go through 100 buyins without moving down multiple times is dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know this for a fact, but I suspect the majority of players who consistantly win and play at 10/20+ they will have more than 200K online. Atleast this is the case for myself and the people I know who plays these limits.

If you wanna call that stupid, fine, but I find it well worth it.

[tannenj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing at a level that makes your net worth at least 100 buyins is smart for anyone with real expenses (that is, anyone out of college). It's also reasonable for someone with few expenses but a normal risk tolerance. Putting your entire net worth into a 30 buyin bankroll is extremely risky relative to the way the average financially intelligent person allocates wealth. This doesn't make it wrong, just like investing in lots of volatile stocks isn't necessarily wrong.

Holding 100 buyins in a poker account, or a box at the Bellagio, or anywhere else where it doesn't earn interest, is dumb, with the possible exception of leaving money in a poker site that may be hard to deposit to, especially if you expect to move up soon. Calling 100 buyins your "poker bankroll" as though you should ever go through 100 buyins without moving down multiple times is dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know this for a fact, but I suspect the majority of players who consistantly win and play at 10/20+ they will have more than 200K online. Atleast this is the case for myself and the people I know who plays these limits.

If you wanna call that stupid, fine, but I find it well worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's the reasoning behind it?

[FlyingStart]

It just makes 30buyin swings alot easier to deal with. Also when you play alot of different sites you almost have to have alot unless you constantly move money around.

I guess the optimal way to do it would be having like 40-50 buyins online and then redeposit if you came down to like 10 buyins. But I dont like the feeling of halving my bankroll through a rough stretch even if I had alot more offline.

Also its kinda of a defeat to have to redeposit. Sure, its not very rational, but I admit to my own psyche