Bankroll for Shortstack Play

[baztalkspoker]

If you buy-in short i.e. 20 big blinds to a full ring game, how big would your bankroll need to be?

Since you will be all-in a lot more often than when you buy-in full, the amount of those shortstack buy-ins will need to be higher.

My own feeling is that it's about 2.5 to 3 times the amount of buy-ins you would need if you were buying in full, note this is still a lower roll than you would need if you were buying in full.

So say you determined that you required 50 buy-ins when buying in full to a $10-$20 game i.e a bankroll of $100K, perhaps you would need 150 shortstack buyins at that same level = $60K.

Anyway this is just pure guess work on my part and I could be very wrong. I've never seen this discussed before, anyone have anything more concrete than my undoubtedly erroneous guessing.

[sc000t]

I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[baztalkspoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say 3 maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 4 buyins for a shorstacking bankroll would be about right. You have to remember that shorstackers generally have way more skill than the average player so they won't really need as much in the terms of BR management to withstand variance. So if you add that to the fact that your not buying in for full amounts (pussy), that will just reduce your varaince even further. So 3-4 buyins sounds about right, after all, you'll always be getting your money in good. Now go fall off a cliff.

sc000t

[/ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
My own feeling is that it's about 2.5 to 3 times the amount of buy-ins you would need if you were buying in full, note this is still a lower roll than you would need if you were buying in full.

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of bankroll required is a function of your standard deviation per hand. If two players have the same win rate and std dev then they need the same $ in their bankroll even if one of them buys in short and the other full.

If your std dev playing short is about 1/2 that of a typical full buyin player then you need about half the total bankroll.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much shortstacking reduces variance. But you definitely need more buyins but less money.

[baztalkspoker]

[ QUOTE ]

The size of bankroll required is a function of your standard deviation per hand. If two players have the same win rate and std dev then they need the same $ in their bankroll even if one of them buys in short and the other full.

If your std dev playing short is about 1/2 that of a typical full buyin player then you need about half the total bankroll.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much shortstacking reduces variance. But you definitely need more buyins but less money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the sensible reply, good to see 2+2 has some quality posters.
Yip that's more or less what I was thinking. I'm not sure if there's a way I could get my standard deviation from pt for purely the times I play with a shortstack, which is not all the time, only the times when I feel like a gamble at the $10-$20 with $400.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if there's a way I could get my standard deviation from pt for purely the times I play with a shortstack, which is not all the time, only the times when I feel like a gamble at the $10-$20 with $400.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you always shortstack at the higher levels then you can filter out the lower stakes levels and check your std dev.

The nice thing about std dev is that it doesn't take all that many hands to get a good estimate.

Here's a simple formula I developed for a very safe bankroll (it's based on a 1 in 10,000 chance of busting - ever):

Bankroll in $ = 6*BB*s^2/WR

BB = big blind in $
s = std dev in ptBB/100 hands
WR = win rate in ptBB/100 hands

Note: this equation is sensitive to your win rate, which is not easy to estimate accurately, especially over a small number of hands (less than 50 to 100 thousand). It's also important to realize that shortstacking changes your win rate so you can't use your full buyin WR as a guide, or your WR at lower levels.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

being an a-hole really is nothing to be proud of you know.
anybody got a non a-hole reply to my legitimate question plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

You basically are asking a question on how to be an a-hole and ruin PLO.

So any response that is an "a-hole" response is therefore acceptable.

You taking umbridge at such responses is rather funny.

[Sodom]

I feel for commenting here (long time reader of 2+2, but very seldom write) because some short-stack haters have mention me in this forum, mainly because they (I believe) lack insight in the fine art of surviving year after year as a poker player.

This is my 5th year as a professional low-limit player. Usually I have been playing fix limit holdem. But PLO is not any strange game to me and for many reasons I decided to put my focus on PLO.

I have also played at Pokerstars for many years, but not as systematically as now, which of course have to do with the fact that PS have catch up to provide a form of "rake back" or benefits with the VIP/FPP system. Today I also reached Supernova status.

Mostly I have shortstacked PS up to blinds 2-4usd (In periods, full buy in). Usually I buy in 25 times BB. Swings in Omaha are big and the way I play, with no hesitation to gamble, the swings are very big - especially when I also play in shorthanded games. I might swing 50 buy ins in a few days. So if my roll was only like 150 Buy Ins, I would not sleep well.

I dont think there are any standard answer to this question. You should just play your game and see where you stand after 1000 hours or so. Just put aside some hundred buy ins and if you lose them quite fast, then you need to do some adjustments, change occupation or game.

[baztalkspoker]

First of all cheers to SilentA and Sodom for your helpful replies.

[ QUOTE ]

You basically are asking a question on how to be an a-hole and ruin PLO.

So any response that is an "a-hole" response is therefore acceptable.

You taking umbridge at such responses is rather funny.

[/ QUOTE ]


The post was clearly an obnoxious and unnecessary reply, I will never understand nor do I want to understand the mentality of someone who can make a post like that to someone they don't even know or know anything about and I don't think much of someone either who thinks it is ok to do so.

His post assumed lots of things about me, for one I'm not a regular short-stack player. If I play $2-$4 PLO I nearly always buy-in for the full amount. I only play shortstacked in the $10-$20 plo game when I fancy a gamble -which I know I shouldn't do since I don't currently have the bankroll for that game.

I agree that buying in short is not conducive to creating a good pot limit omaha game, but that is really a matter for the poker sites to sort out. Poker players will always seek out an edge in a game and buying in a full ring short stacked in plo can be a winning strategy, taking umbrage at poker players who choose to play a short stacked strategy then is also rather funny imo, just as making a-hole comments and supporting a-hole comments is rather low imo.

My main reason for asking the question was out of curiosity as it was something I hadn't seen discussed before. I have a background in mathematics and statistics and was just genuinely curious how playing a shortstack strategy impacted on what someones bankroll should be.

Anyway I'm not a regular 2+2 poster but am clearly getting the impression that shortstackers(of which I'm not most of the time) are not welcome, it's difficult enough to avoid getting the odd a-hole reply to non objectionable questions here so guess I shouldn't have been surprised that one that brought up short stack would bring out the a-hole respondees types who can see it as an excuse to act the a-hole.

[jomatty]

baz,

your right that talking about shortstack play can make some posters act like a-holes. dont let this stop you from asking the question you want as these players just need to learn to adjust against the short stacks and quit complaining about something that always has, and always will be a part of poker. some players prefer to buy-in short and this is not going to change. there are plenty of players who are quite good that prefer to buy-in short (barry greenstein for instance) and instead of whining and being rude to legitimate questions a better use of these posters time would be to learn how to play versus short stacks.