$27 bankroll

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

2 buyins!!?!?!
man youre a lucky mf.

Seriously I regularly drop 2/3 buy ins on people hitting some odd hand on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I regularly drop 2/3 buy-ins also. The thing is I never had all my $ in play and when I was playing very short I always had $20 or $50 HU sngs running. For me the competition at this level of sng is very weak. I can usually win these things they don't take very long to play. If I lost money in a cash game over a period of time there was a good chance that I would have HU sngs profits to compensate. To make an analogy to investing - cash games were the risky part of my portfolio with a high return, while the HU sngs were the low variance low return part. I can't get the high return on the HU sngs because once I get to the $100 level my edge with respect to the other players decreases substantially.

Lucky

[Nsight7]

[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just ran $84 up to $10k plus in a period of 8 days. Clearly I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless with the exception of buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84 at the very beginning (you have to start somewhere and I'm unwilling to play micro stakes). Even this wasn't that reckless because I wouldn't be bothered by losing $80 bucks.

I would play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it. If I a buy-in or more I would just drop back down. For instance, I was playing $400NL with $1250 and lost 2 buy-ins. After this I dropped back down to a $200NL table with a full buy-in and one $20 HU sng at a time. I played these until I got back to $600 and then played 2 200NL tables + with either a $20 and $50 HU sng going at the same time.

Lucky

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. I have accumulated $80 from nothing on Stars thus far just playing very VERY conservative bankroll management at the .01/.02 and I have long considered taking a shot at the next game and so forth. I might make this the 5-day weekend where I take some shots to move my bankroll along because the $2K status quo I have been in for the last month plus has got to go. Granted I haven't played particularly much, but I still don't like it a whole lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you can win at a good rate somewhere you should be aggressive about taking shots. If you lose what you set aside for your shot, just drop back down and play where you know you can win. Rinse and repeat. There is nothing to be gained by grinding away at $10NL when you can beat it and have roll to take some shots. The experience of playing with better players and comfort you gain by playing at high stakes is more significant that any temporary loss in funds (as long as you don't completely busto).

Lucky

[jocke4]

at one of my accounts i played an invite freroll that had little more price monies.
uhm, i came third and cashed 20 euros.
then i turned that to 50 euros in a week or so by playing sit n folds.
cashed out 50 euros and had 1 euro left.
Then i played nl5 w my hole roll obv.
The roll grew quiet fast and when my BR hit 50 euros i ran terrible, overplayed my hands couldn't fold to a c-bet and stuff.
I kinda had the "fps" syndrome because most of the players were so bad at this level. (maybe me two) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Well after I past the 50 number my next problem was getting my BR over 100.
Next problem was 150 and now im at the 200 mark.
Kinda feels ridic with all these numbers, I guess my next problem is 250 and 300 and so on.
But when I reach 200 again, I will move up to nl10 and try that level again.

I think If you play solid tight aggressive at these micro levels its very profitable in the long run.
Im not saying that 100 euros is big money or 200 whatever.
And I could really afford to gamble with my roll.
But I really think that I can manage to take my roll from 1 euro up to whatever.
My only problem is tilting and thats something I need to work on.

So If I were you #1 I would grind nl2 and set up BR requirements at each level, a floor and a roof.

It would be sweet though to do it like Lucky_Mf.
good luck

[Donkenstein]

[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[GermanGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should also keep in mind that bankroll doesn't mean the same for everyone. If you just bet that you can turn x amount into y in a specific time. X is not your bankroll. You can always reload with the rest of what really is you bankroll...

The situation that is described here sounds a little like that. Additionally you could be in other situations where "aggressive bankroll management" can be correct. Let's say you just a big part of your bankroll because you had to turn it into non-poker money for some reason. If have played 400NL before and now have only 1000$ left you could try to start at 100NL, because you are fairly confident that you can beat it, especially if you are able to reload.

However as this is a beginner's forum I think this is horrible advice and so I agree with Donkenstein. Just wanted to explain, so that a beginner would be able to judge for himself

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was using some aggressive bankroll management, but I wouldn't say that I did anything that was outright reckless.....buying into a $200NL table for $80 with a bankroll of $84...play a level with as long as I had more than 2 buy-ins for it

[/ QUOTE ]
All you did was play recklessly with your br who are you trying to kid lol. That post belongs in BBV not in a beginner post asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't pay recklessly, with the possible exception of the beginning (but even here losses where limited at $84 which is not very much "real world" money). I am not advising anyone to take their $80 5NL roll and make a run at 200NL: THIS WAS NOT MY ADVICE. I'm an experienced NLHE player at levels from 100NL all they way up to 2kNL. My run would be virtually impossible for a beginning player as they would have to seamlessly adjust to better, more aggressive, players and the increased amount of money in play. Additionally - losing the $80 would not mean the end to my poker career as I had money on other sites - and money available for deposit if I needed to go this route.

I am fairly confident that I could repeat the 80 to 10k feat though it might take me more than 8 days and 13k cash game hands.

The contribution of my experience is threefold:

(i) it often makes sense to take some limited shots

As I said in the earlier post, the money in NL poker (10k+ months) is at 200NL+. If you are playing lower than this, your goal should be to move up as quickly as you can. Most players are going to have to do a certain amount of grinding at lower limits to figure out how to play. Once you have the basics figured out and are a solid winner at say 10NL you should be aggressively trying to break through to higher limits.

Realistically what does this mean? For most people it doesn't mean sitting at 200NL with $80 in their account, but they should be taking a 1 BI shot at 25NL (or even 50NL) bankroll of $200. If you lose it isn't a problem to grind back the money at 10NL and they have the added benefit of playing with better players and higher stakes. If you win you are on your way toward establishing yourself at the next level and dramatically increasing your hourly rate.

(ii) it is possible to move up pretty quickly with some aggressive (but limited shot taking)

The conventional 2+2 wisdom says take shots when you are ready and have 20BIs for the next level. The part about being somewhat ready is correct, but the 20BI thing is insanely conservative. Assuming you are a 5PTBB/100 winner it will take you 40k hands to accumulate 20BI for the next level assuming the next level is 2x the stakes. Some of the levels changes involve more than a doubling of the stakes (2NL to 5NL, 10NL to 25NL) so it will take longer for some of the transitions. Using this approach it would take the 5PTBB/100 winner over 220k hands to move from 2NL to 200NL. This is 11 20k hand months. More aggressive shot taking could make this transition happen much quicker with fairly limited increase in risk (you shouldn't be all that worried about losing a microstakes roll because it isn't very much "real world" money). Also, starting at a higher level (say 10NL) would shorten the amount of time it took dramatically.

(iii) if you don't move up when you can you are costing yourself $.

If it took you 200k hands and 11 months to move to 200NL and you could of accomplished (with minimal risk) the same feat in 100K hands and 5 months you left a lot of money on the table.

One of the reasons why my strategy was so not reckless is that the potential winnings associated with playing higher stakes dwarfed my initial risk. I would have cost myself a ridiculous amount of money by trying to grind my $80 up playing 10NL (the lowest level on the site I was playing).

Look at the Chris Fergusen zero to hero thing - It took him over 1-year to move his roll from $0 to $10k. Do you think he could of done it faster without his restrictive bankroll rules? I do. He is apparently a decent tourney player and would proably have an edge in lots of cash games as well. What does a good player like Chris cost himself by taking so long and being so conservative? A lot of [censored] money. What would he be costing himself with a more aggressive approach to moving up? Not much. He might lose his meager bankroll in the beginning.

Lucky