Bankroll for full time play

[The Velour Fog]

the correct answer is: it depends

some people will be very shaken by 10-15 bi swings (they will happen), others will think nothing of it and just continue grinding. you'll have to ask yourself how much of your roll you can lose and still be able to play your A game, theres really no clear cut answers here.
besides, 20+ bi swings are pretty rare (ive never had one over several 100k hands) if youre beating the games your playing for a solid ammount, 50 bi downswings from a clearly winning player is pretty much unheard of..

[danjohncochane]

6300 hands per week? Is that a typo?

You should be doing way more than that as profession.

[NattyLight4life]

I personally play much better and with a much lower level of stress when i have 40+ buy-ins for a limit

[leo.]

I think 30bi is enough. If you keep 60+ you are just wasting money. You could put the excess bankroll into investments, or move up in stakes more quickly.

[tufat23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
50 is fine, but without knowing your stakes, the number of hands you plan to play, you're throwing a dart in the dark.

[/ QUOTE ]

My current bankroll is a little over $20k. I have money in the bank too but I really hope to never touch this - not least of which my wife would kill me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. I play a few different games online. NLH, PLO , Fixed limit holdem and Sngs. My current maximum stakes are 3/6 at both PLO and NLH and ~$200 sngs(I play the 220 ones on full-tilt too). I know everybody says this but I am a winning player in all of these - at least that's what PT and sharkscope tell me.

I think I will have to make sure I will play at least 90 table hours a week and drop down to 2/4 nl and plo for a while. I guess that would mean in the region of 90x70 =6300 hands a week. My win rates are 4.25 ptBB perr hour in nlH and 4.85 per hour in PLO. Note I'm using per hour not per 100 as it's the bottom line I'm interested in. My win rates in sngs are high over 10% ROI on most sites, but as always no doubt I need to play some more to be more confident on these results.

So I think the important thing is to try to ensure I put in plenty of table hours a month. I think 50 buy-ins is the minimum I need really and i realise I might even be taking a gamble on this figure but if things start to look in anyway bad I can make money from other sources so no major problem.

Also what I didn't say is I have been living off poker winnings exclusively already for the past year. So it's not a total new experience for me and I'm at least semi tried and tested I would hope it's fair to say. My other income that I had has not been touched in regards to day to day expenses and has been banked and used towards buying a property.

edit: One positive factor that I nearly forgot is rakeback. My win rates don't include this. Rakeback alone should be giving me a sizable % of the income I need.

[/ QUOTE ]



1 tabling. you know this is the internet

[Some9]

I have been accused of being a br nit, but I think playing with less than 100 BI is too risky when you rely on the money.

I personally take shots at 75BI for the next level.

[baztalkspoker]

[ QUOTE ]
6300 hands per week? Is that a typo?

You should be doing way more than that as profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it was't a typo. It's based on playing for a physical 35 hours a week. And at approx 2.5 mt ratio so 35*2.5 = 87.5. I rounded this up to 90. Hands per hour I quickly guessed at about 70 per hour. I think this is probably a bit conservative. If I check on pt I can get exact figure but still it won't be too much more than 70 hands per table hour. So 90 x 70 = 6300 hands a week. This is a minimum btw but maybe you're right and my minimum should be even higher. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Maybe I need to cut down on the time I spent browsing the internet and on msn and on poker forums. i seem to be on the pc a helluva lot, but end up talking bout poker as much as I play it.

I have a 2nd monitor on the way once again - after giving my wife one of my monitors, normally the max number of tables that I play is 4 at a time. But I might seek to add more when I get this monitor, so that should increaee the number of hands I play weekly. Though if I play more than 4 it'll probably be doing sngs(Can I mention that word on this forum [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] ) where I find it easier to multi-table.

How many hands do you think I should be looking to play a week danjohn?

Is 10,000 enough or is that still too lazy [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]?

[baztalkspoker]

[ QUOTE ]

1 tabling. you know this is the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say I played only 1 table at a time anywhere [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Maybe not as much as I should do but for the record I multi-table.

[Kevin Browne]

The key to any talk about bankroll requirement is knowing if you are a longterm winner at the level you play. IF you have a few hundred thousands hands in and your a solid winning player at a certain level, 40-50 buyins should be enough.

gl

[Irish Mafia]

[ QUOTE ]
100 BI Bankrollmanagement is very bad.
IF you loose the first 50 BI´s you will loose the next 50, too.

My biggest downswing was ~13 Stacks, so if you have the right winrate a bankrollmanagement of 20-30 stacks is no problem.
If you loose to much, simply move down in the limits.

[/ QUOTE ]