|
|
|
|
#1
08-24-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
From the 2+2 archives:
Bankroll for NL Posted by: Bob Posted on: Tuesday, 27 March 2001, at 5:38 p.m. What would be a proper bankroll for playing NL on a regular basis? Just a playing bankroll, not to live from. TIA Re: Bankroll for NL Posted by: Ray Zee Posted on: Wednesday, 28 March 2001, at 1:12 a.m. probably about 500 times the total of the blinds of the game you play in. thats assuming you tend to buyin for the normal or close to the minimum and the game is not too wild. less if you are a champ and the games are soft and more if you are a marginal winner. ************* So, a solid winning 5-10 NL player would need 7500 under the assumptions stated. 
|
|
#3
08-24-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
71/2 buy ins wow guess times have changed in six years. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. As Pzhon will tell you, the conventional wisdom of 20 buy ins at NL is very conservative for a solid winning player. And I will add that 20 buy ins is vastly underbankrolled for the marginal winning player.
|
|
#4
08-24-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 71/2 buy ins wow guess times have changed in six years. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. As Pzhon will tell you, the conventional wisdom of 20 buy ins at NL is very conservative for a solid winning player. And I will add that 20 buy ins is vastly underbankrolled for the marginal winning player. [/ QUOTE ] I thought this until I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, you just run siiick.
|
|
#5
08-24-2007, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, you just run siiick. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, sometimes you have 20 buy-in downswings, particularly in tough games. However, did you break even in all of the years of play before that downswing started? A solid winner should have been up over a thousand buy-ins at that point, so you should have been prepared for a 20 buy-in downswing. If you started with 10 buy-ins, that 20 buy-in downswing should not have busted you. A bankroll is not supposed to be larger than the largest possible downswing. A safe bankroll gives you a low risk of ruin, but part of that comes from saving some of your winnings.
|
|
#6
08-25-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, you just run siiick. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, sometimes you have 20 buy-in downswings, particularly in tough games. However, did you break even in all of the years of play before that downswing started? A solid winner should have been up over a thousand buy-ins at that point, so you should have been prepared for a 20 buy-in downswing. If you started with 10 buy-ins, that 20 buy-in downswing should not have busted you. A bankroll is not supposed to be larger than the largest possible downswing. A safe bankroll gives you a low risk of ruin, but part of that comes from saving some of your winnings. [/ QUOTE ] I was a solid winner up until the start of this swing, and was way over rolled for my limit (100 buy ins or so), so no, didn't come close to wiping me out. Funny thing is though, the games weren't that tough for me- my point was that once in a while you can have a 20 buy in downswing in games you crush. I understand your point though, and your right. I've just always interpreted your operating bankroll as what you're able to take a hit AND play at the same level AND take out money to live on, as that has been my situation for a while now. This is obviously a much larger figure then the theoretical one Ray Zee is talking about.
|
|
#7
08-25-2007, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, you just run siiick. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, sometimes you have 20 buy-in downswings, particularly in tough games. However, did you break even in all of the years of play before that downswing started? A solid winner should have been up over a thousand buy-ins at that point, so you should have been prepared for a 20 buy-in downswing. If you started with 10 buy-ins, that 20 buy-in downswing should not have busted you. A bankroll is not supposed to be larger than the largest possible downswing. A safe bankroll gives you a low risk of ruin, but part of that comes from saving some of your winnings. [/ QUOTE ] umm wow maybe he moved up at some point?
|
|
#8
08-25-2007, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 71/2 buy ins wow guess times have changed in six years. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. As Pzhon will tell you, the conventional wisdom of 20 buy ins at NL is very conservative for a solid winning player. [/ QUOTE ] roflburgers. you have no clue or are levelling. I can't tell which. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. Sometimes, rarely but sometimes, you just run siiick. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, sometimes you have 20 buy-in downswings, particularly in tough games. However, did you break even in all of the years of play before that downswing started? A solid winner should have been up over a thousand buy-ins at that point, so you should have been prepared for a 20 buy-in downswing. If you started with 10 buy-ins, that 20 buy-in downswing should not have busted you. A bankroll is not supposed to be larger than the largest possible downswing. A safe bankroll gives you a low risk of ruin, but part of that comes from saving some of your winnings. [/ QUOTE ] Your roll should be separate from other money you have - whether you got it from poker or anywhere else. Who cares if you are up a thousand buy-ins. If you spent it, it's gone. It has no relevance on your current bank roll. It's what you have as a current roll that matters. If you have 10 buy-ins and lose that, you are BUSTO. This should never happen, which is hy 25-40 buy-ins is a basic minimum in no limit. The laggier you are, the closer to 40-50 it should be. A nit can stay at 20.
|
|
#9
08-25-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
Assuming you don't ever want to move up, and I think that would be a bad assumption in most cases. A lot of players are trying to turn grow their BRs to the point where they are BR'd for the next limit. A player constanty cashing out everything in excess of his original BR will bv have a higher RoR
|
|
#10
08-25-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ray Zee on NL bankroll requirements
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 71/2 buy ins wow guess times have changed in six years. [/ QUOTE ] Not really. As Pzhon will tell you, the conventional wisdom of 20 buy ins at NL is very conservative for a solid winning player. [/ QUOTE ] roflburgers. you have no clue or are levelling. I can't tell which. [/ QUOTE ] I'd bet a lot of money on neither. Your rudeness is far out of line. 20 buy-ins is overly conservative for solid winners in low stakes game. Binions should have restricted the statement to that context, but in this context, low stakes games include the vast majority of poker games, and include levels where people make $70/hour (with normal, not outrageous multitabling) and total over six figures for the year. People often mention 20 buy-ins and 300 BB in the same breath. However, 20 buy-ins is much more conservative for a solid NL player than 300 BB is for a solid low stakes limit player. It depends on the stats, but the analogue may be 10-12 buy-ins. I believe that most of the people parroting bankroll guidelines they have heard do not realize that these are so different. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I hit a 20 buy in downswing. Up until this point, in 3 1/2 years of playing full time (30+ hrs/week), the largest downswing I had ever had was 10 buy ins, and this happened once. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Actually, if in over 1 million hands of NL$200+ those are the worst downswings he encountered, then he is a great poker player or was quite lucky. Possibly both. This doesn't mean someone playing NL $25 needs $500 to have a low risk of ruin, or can ignore a 5 buy-in downswing. Even 5 buy-in downswings at NL $25 should be rare. [ QUOTE ] Who cares if you are up a thousand buy-ins. [/ QUOTE ] Just about everyone. A 20 buy-in downswing will happen eventually. It matters whether your first 20 buy-in downswing will probably happen soon, or after you are up a few hundred buy-ins, so that saving even a fraction of your winnings will probably keep you safe.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
