Starting Bankroll Requirements

DQuadfather · #1 03-12-2007, 10:02 PM

What do you recommend is a good starting bankroll to work on my 1/2 NL cash game? I've been playing a few years, have a good concept of odds, and think this is a pretty easy game. Still, I have a few leaks that I need to identify and think this is probably a good start. Also, is there a general rule to calculating an appropriate bankroll, whether CGs or SnGs?

ottsville · #2 03-12-2007, 10:19 PM

FAQ

DQuadfather · #3 03-13-2007, 10:02 AM

Leave it to Wiki. After I check out that link, I read the hotlink on winning the WSOP. Thanks, man.

rocco1999 · #4 03-13-2007, 02:25 PM

At least 20 BI

lucky_mf · #5 03-13-2007, 03:47 PM

If you read aba20's (aka sbrugby, Brian Townsend) well thread he advocates a pretty aggresive approach to moving up (i.e. playing with 8 or fewer buy-ins for a given level). Other great players (cts) advocate 30+ buy-ins. My point: There are all sorts of thoughts on this and I really think it depends on the games you play and how you play.

Someone who 4+ tables needs to have more buy-ins that someone who plays 1-2 tables.

Players who push small margins, bluff a lot, or are very aggresive need to have more buy-ins than players that play more conservatively.

Players that play in very aggresive games need to have more buy-ins.

Someone who is a super solid winner can get away with fewer buy-ins. Someone who is unsure as to their ability to beat a certain level needs more.

Someone who doesn't tilt (or doesnt' tilt bad) can get away with fewer buy-ins.

If I were funding an account with $500 and no chance to redoposit I would 2-3 table 100 buy-in NL tables (avoiding marginal spots) until I dropped to $200 or worked my way up to $1000, at which point I would either move up or down a level. Once I got to 15 buy-ins at my desired level I would play my regular game (being more aggresive and pushing smaller margins). I would take this approach because 100NL is not very aggresive, I am confident in my ability to beat it, and I would be bored playing any lower. Someone in a different position might choose a more conservative approach

People have 15+ buy-in down swings, but in my experience it doesn't happen without crappy play (at lower limits at least). I've had multipe bad swings (including a 17 buy-in (3.4K) swing this past weekend). In each of these down swings my play (tilt) was a biggest contributing factor. If you suck or are on perma-tilt 20 buy-ins will not keep you from going bust.

Lucky

Johnny Hughes · #6 03-14-2007, 11:27 AM

You should sit in an individual no-limit game for 100 times the big blind or more. At 1-2, you should sit in for $500. You should not lose over 5% of your bankroll in any one game. Therefore, theoretically, you need $10,000 to play about that high, minimum.

Another way is to calculate your win rate. A strong player wins three out of four times in strong competition. However, he suffers a string of losses some times. If you lose ten pullouts in a row, maybe you are not as good as this as you thing. I once lost 7 out of 8 pullouts in Las Vegas. It happens.

lucky_mf · #7 03-14-2007, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You should sit in an individual no-limit game for 100 times the big blind or more. At 1-2, you should sit in for $500. You should not lose over 5% of your bankroll in any one game. Therefore, theoretically, you need $10,000 to play about that high, minimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

For live play this seems really nitty, particularly because casinos typically don't spread NL games below 1/2. What are you supposed to do? Crush penny ante home games until you have $10K. Save 5% of your real job pay until you have 10K. Granted I don't play live, but I would imagine at 25 hands per hour it would take a hell of a long time to lose $10K even if you sucked real bad.

Online, where you can easily play 400 hands per hour, the big downswings can happen much faster. Tilt is also a much larger concern online. Go on tilt live and you are probably going to have to stop playing before doing too much damage and you will have an opportunity to regroup before playing again. If you go on tilt online when your playing 400+ hands per hour, you can lose a lot quickly. I would also imagine that the pace of online play make tilt somewhat more likely. For these reasons I think you need a much bigger bankroll for online play than you would to play the same stakes in a casino.

I also think shortstacking (buying in NL games for 20bb) is a legitimate strategy. I might not be so good in micro or low stakes where a raise is generally indicative of a pretty good hand, but in the higher stakes games big stackes are raising, re-raiseing, and calling raises with suspect hands (connectors, small pps, trash, ect), shorstacking can be very profitable.

Lucky

Johnny Hughes · #8 03-14-2007, 02:25 PM

Tilt is about pinball machines. I do not tilt.

lucky_mf · #9 03-14-2007, 02:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Tilt is about pinball machines. I do not tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly everyone else does though to some degree or another (not playing your best=tilt), whether they choose to admit it or not. As I stated I suspect tilt is a bigger concern for online players. Because of the speed of play - mistakes compound quickly.

BR requirements for a reasonably good player who always plays their best should be considerably lower than those for a good player subject to episodes of tilt or suspect play. If I played my best all the time I doublt I would every have a downswing of more than 8 buy-ins, and thus my risk of going bust with 12 (100bb) buy-ins 4-tabling would be minimal.

Lucky

Johnny Hughes · #10 03-14-2007, 06:32 PM

I think one factor in live play is that others can see you and see your misery. If you go on tilt and start bluffing off your chips, the others apply a certain social pressure. You don't want to play really bad with all those people watching. Slots and video poker are the crack cocaine of gambling, niney per cent of addicted gamblers play in social isolation with a machine. I think it is harder to go crazy at poker because there are people there.