Bankroll Management- Minimizing Downswings

[fjbourne]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, particularly since I decided to take a break after going on a fairly nasty 20k hand downswing.

We all know the minimum bankroll requirements for NL (20bi, drop down at 15bi, etc), but lately I have been wondering if there would be a more efficient way to minimize losses during downswings and if anyone practices it. Typically when we hit the worst downswings it's 12+ buy ins.
Conversely, when we hit the best upswings its usually 15+.

My theory is this- drop down to the next level after dropping 4 buy ins regardless of reason. Playing the best you've played in weeks? Drop down anyway. Table is juicy? drop down anyway. Then, Play at the lower level until you win 2 buy ins back. If you end up losing 4 buy ins, drop down again until you win 2 buy ins and then move back up the ladder.

I understand that the reason for having a big bankroll is to be able to withstand downswings and stay at a certain limit and that general bankroll guidelines do encourage dropping down when you become under rolled for a level. But couldn't this method be more EV then current bankroll guidelines?

Essentially we are minimizing the effect of a downswing on the overall size of our bankroll (although the net -bb may be the same) while allowing us to have move back up faster when the downswing is over/we start running well again.

Obviously this would take strict bankroll management/ will power, but wouldn't it be better and be more profitable then simply dropping down when you feel your not playing up to par/ become under rolled?


Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

[donkeykong2]

i think you would be switching the game levels pretty often to do this which probably isnt a good thing too. also the necessary bankroll has something to do with your winrate too. 20 is probably not nearly enough at the higher levels with smaller edges.

[1o BoY]

If you feel this helps you then it may work, but we have a roll for a reason & droping down for the sake of it will hurt the winrate! This is player dependant and would probably help someone that tilts hard.

[fjbourne]

[ QUOTE ]
If you feel this helps you then it may work, but we have a roll for a reason & droping down for the sake of it will hurt the winrate! This is player dependant and would probably help someone that tilts hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im def. not sure it would help me or be better then typical bankroll management suggests, just kind of throwing it out there as an idea.

I agree though- for someone that tilts hard this could help. Additionally, for someone playing on a short bankroll (say 20 buy ins) this could really reduce risk of ruin/busto.

The main thing I'm wondering is would it really hurt winrate for a player with a large roll? Perhaps you drop down at say -5 bi's. If you go on say a -15bi downswing, wouldn't it be better to lose say

-5 buy ins at 1,000NL (-5000)
-5 buy ins at 600NL (-3000)
-5 buy ins at 400NL (-2000)
Total -$10000
then -15k?

Say that downswing is followed by a 15bi upswing:
+2 buy ins at 400NL (+800)
+2 buy ins at 600NL (+1200)
+11 buy ins at 1000NL (+11,000)
Total +13,000

So we lose out on $2,000 on our upswing, but save $5,000 on our downswing.

Because the method allows you to move up quickly and that you are playing at levels much lower then normal (games which you have greater EV in), and also the fact that losses are going to be minimized near the end of the downswing, would winrate be effected that significantly?

[Beermantm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you feel this helps you then it may work, but we have a roll for a reason & droping down for the sake of it will hurt the winrate! This is player dependant and would probably help someone that tilts hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im def. not sure it would help me or be better then typical bankroll management suggests, just kind of throwing it out there as an idea.

I agree though- for someone that tilts hard this could help. Additionally, for someone playing on a short bankroll (say 20 buy ins) this could really reduce risk of ruin/busto.

The main thing I'm wondering is would it really hurt winrate for a player with a large roll? Perhaps you drop down at say -5 bi's. If you go on say a -15bi downswing, wouldn't it be better to lose say

-5 buy ins at 1,000NL (-5000)
-5 buy ins at 600NL (-3000)
-5 buy ins at 400NL (-2000)
Total -$10000
then -15k?

Say that downswing is followed by a 15bi upswing:
+2 buy ins at 400NL (+800)
+2 buy ins at 600NL (+1200)
+11 buy ins at 1000NL (+11,000)
Total +13,000

So we lose out on $2,000 on our upswing, but save $5,000 on our downswing.

Because the method allows you to move up quickly and that you are playing at levels much lower then normal (games which you have greater EV in), and also the fact that losses are going to be minimized near the end of the downswing, would winrate be effected that significantly?

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of doubling up 15 times at the same level you have to double up what 17 times?? (two extra times at other levels)

Seems to me you are putting off your win-rate in a hefty manner seeing that if you are indeed a winning player you will experience a greater number of upswings than down swings.

I think switching limits is a good idea if you can not beat the limit you are playing at or a game one level down is so much softer that your profit and win rate go up a fairly large amount. Other than that you should play at the highest limit you both have an edge at and that your bankroll can handle the variance.


I read these threads and people have a large attachment to their bankroll which is supposed to be disposable income. You should be able to lose your entire bankroll and life will continue along as nothing happened. Obviously this is not the case for the vast majority of posters on these boards or anyone who plays poker for a living. Someone who plays poker for a living and their bankrolls are their lives, I could see some adjusting after losing a certain percentage. Until they can build their bankroll back up to the full amount at the lower level so that they can move back up to the more profitable limit.
If moving down holds no benefit, like your win-rate remains the same between the two levels, then I never understand the moving down in limits. It will simply take you longer to make back the loses.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

We all know the minimum bankroll requirements for NL (20bi, drop down at 15bi, etc),


[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] We don't all know that.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 20 buy-ins is wrong for most players. See my hundreds of past posts on bankrolls for a more detailed explanation. Donkeykong2 gave one reason 20 buy-ins is wrong in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]

My theory is this- drop down to the next level after dropping 4 buy ins regardless of reason. Playing the best you've played in weeks? Drop down anyway. Table is juicy? drop down anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you an advantage gambler, or not?

It sounds like you want to use some sort of betting system to manufacture an advantage. You should be relying on outplaying your opponents to create that advantage. When you are outplaying your opponents, and you are properly bankrolled, don't quit.

When you have dropped 4 buy-ins, you don't know whether you have hit the bottom of a 4 buy-in downswing, or just started a 10 buy-in drop. The cards have no memory. Why change how you play, if you are still properly bankrolled?

[Hince]

The only downswing this will prevent is one that is induced by tilt/bad play.

Personally, I like moving down after having 2 losing sessions just so that I can rebuild my confidence.