$50 to $10k

[mecbluefugate]

how long would it take a good player to get from $50 - $10k

what about one using the 20 buy-in rule?

[geo8o2]

i think i can do it in 6-8 weeks. there are much better players than me. so 2-4 weeks?

[Gonso]

Here we go again

Obv this depends on your skill level throughout the various limits you'd be playing, and how many hands per day you get in, how many tables, your RoR, etc. If you wanted to get it done in the shortest amount of time while being reasonably bankrolled you probably wouldn't go higher than 200NL, 400NL tops before you hit 10k.

Now prepare for people wanting to wager on how quickly the can do it themselves and so on

[Gomer_Pyle]

i went from $100 to $7k in 3 weeks, and didn't play very much. I used 5 buy-ins as a minimum rule and 2-tabled. Played only at the very juiciest tables i could find. Moving up the limits goes so much faster using 'loose' BR-rules.

[holdem2000]

If you're actually a winner at 2/4nl (and all the stakes below) and only have $50 for some reason, the 20 buyin rule for you is terrible. You shouldn't keep yourself stuck in .05/.10 for a huge number of hands waiting to build your roll to $500 for .10/.25, you're earning severely below what your hourly rate would be at higher stakes.

See http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...kratz0707.html for a good treatment on aggressive bankroll management, which should be most applicable in a situation of a good player whose roll forces him several levels in stakes below his normal game.

[Machmood]

Im pretty new to this site, but most limit players claim 2bb/100 hands is normal online for a solid player, and 5-7bb/100 is average for NL. Then u read posts like this....Just doesnt add up to me.. . if u can turn 50$ into 10k in 3-6 weeks why wouldnt u do just that every month. minimal risk, dont need a bankroll, and could spend all ur winnigs without having to preserve a bankroll

[AntonHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty new to this site, but most limit players claim 2bb/100 hands is normal online for a solid player, and 5-7bb/100 is average for NL. Then u read posts like this....Just doesnt add up to me.. . if u can turn 50$ into 10k in 3-6 weeks why wouldnt u do just that every month. minimal risk, dont need a bankroll, and could spend all ur winnigs without having to preserve a bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a bitch, so much easyer to make $ when you have a bankroll then go from 50$ to 10k..

[Machmood]

its a bitch??? turning 50 to 10k in 3 weeks playing online poker is far from being a bitch,... idk i just feel like people r down playing how hard it will be.....

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're actually a winner at 2/4nl (and all the stakes below) and only have $50 for some reason, the 20 buyin rule for you is terrible. You shouldn't keep yourself stuck in .05/.10 for a huge number of hands waiting to build your roll to $500 for .10/.25, you're earning severely below what your hourly rate would be at higher stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree that the 20 buy-in guess is terrible, you don't have the option of winning your normal hourly rate. That's part of the penalty of falling to $50. Not only have you lost money, but you have lost earning power.

Many people overlook the fact that your win rate affects your bankroll requirements. Lower stakes games are much, much softer than higher stakes games. If 20 buy-ins is right for you at NL $50, then it is probably ridiculously conservative at NL $2, and far too aggressive at NL $400. (The SSNL FAQ incorrectly suggests that you should have 20 buyins no matter what. See this thread. I am working on a replacement.)

See this educated guess at a conservative schedule for moving up which reflects win rates achievable at different levels.

[ QUOTE ]

See http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...kratz0707.html for a good treatment on aggressive bankroll management, which should be most applicable in a situation of a good player whose roll forces him several levels in stakes below his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are quite a few problems with that article.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] The author performed a complicated miscalculation instead of using a simple Kelly formula: bankroll = standard deviation^2 / win rate. SD is about 1.7 buy-ins or 170% for 9 or 10 player SNGs.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Second, the swings with the Kelly criterion are too sickening for almostt everyone. Most people would prefer to use a fractional Kelly system such as bankroll = comfort * standard deviation^2 / win rate, where most people would choose a comfort level between 2 and 4. Comfort is the reciprocal of the Kelly fraction k.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "Growth versus value" is a tradeoff, not a dichotomy.
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] The ROI assumed was 30%, which is a lot higher than many people believe is sustainable in games of moderate stakes. The STT FAQ actually suggests 20% isn't sustainable in $6 turbo SNGs, which I think is wrong, but it shows the problem.

You can find some good discussion in the magazine discussion forum in this thread, as well as some flames after the OP recommended a get-rich-quick site.

[DorianGray]

Isn't there some thing on full tilt where Chris Ferguson built up 10k from $0 in 16 months? Starting with $50 would speed that up a lot. But claiming to be able to do it in 3 weeks is a bit hard to swallow. I suppose it is possible.
Like the fact that I don't know a single person losing money at poker. But you would have to play very risky and be very lucky. 3 to 6 months seems more reasonable.