Bankroll for Razz.

[Seb86]

Hello there,

I am new to this forum so I am unsure if this is the good place to post this.

Anyway, what do you guys feel like is a solid bankroll for Razz ? 200 BB ? 100 enough ? 300 ?

Also same question for stud8.

Thanks in advance for the answers.

[RustyBrooks]

I feel about the same for all limit games. The actual number you want to have depends on how comfortable you are with the risk of going bankrupt, and what your edge is in the games. The standard suggestions usually are using this formula with a particular set of assumptions. You can tailr this for yourself. Because of the rake, you actually can need more at lower limits than at higher limits (because your win rate can be lower)

The bankroll formula is:
-(SD*SD)/(WR*2)ln(risk of ruin)
SD = standard deviation - most player run at about SD=15bb/100
WR = win rate
risk of ruin = chances of going broke (general rule is 1% for pros, 5% for amateurs)
So for a 5% ROR, 15bb/100 SD, you get 170bb if you can win 2bb/100, or 340bb if you can win at 1bb/100. Until you know your win rate at a level I wouldn't assume more than 2bb/100. If your standard deviation is higher that's a pretty big deal - note that quantity is squared - lowering your SD is a better move than increasing your win rate. In fact, in Sklansky on Poker he sort of recommends playing bigger games than your bankroll sometimes indicates you can play, but playing a very low standard deviation game and giving up some bb/hour. In razz, low SD = fold whenever in doubt

Note that for pros, the 1% mark means you need a lot of BB, between 260bb and 520bb for the same win rate as at 1%. And if you're willing to take a slightly higher risk, say 10%, you can squeak by with 130-260bb. Note that as bb goes down linearly, ROR goes up exponentially, because of the ln(ROR) factor. Maybe I'll post some graphs later.

I think it's good for people to know where these benchmarks come from, it's not a one-size-fits-all thing, it really depends on your style, ability, tolerance for loss, etc. It's a shame that so few poker books even mention this gem of a formula.

I personally like 300bb because I have the money and I'm in no hurry to move up. When I barely have 300bb for a level I stick to that level. When I have 300bb for level 1 and an additional, say, 50bb for level 2 I'll sometimes take shots at level 2, where if I lose 50bb, I run back to level 1. So if I was playing 1/2 and wanted to take occaisonal shots at 2/4 I'd need $600 + $200 = $800. Between 2/4 and 3/6 it's easier because that's $1200 + $300 = $1500.

BTW you pawned me bad in a hand last night... remember that? "Ahahahahahah you paired your ace" - I played that hand pretty bad.

[Seb86]

LOL, thats funny I run into you here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yeah it seemed obvious at that time that you did paired your ace and were trying to represent a monster [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thx for the answer also.

[SGspecial]

Razz = 300BB
stud/8 = 200BB

split pots help keep variance down.

Rusty is right that you should adjust these levels using many different factors, but if you're getting started this will give you a good cushion and you should never go bust. Why? b/c if you get down to 100BB roll you're probably not beating the level you're playing and you need to drop down. If you're already playing 25c/50c razz then read this forum religiously and learn how to win, or choose a different game.

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, thats funny I run into you here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yeah it seemed obvious at that time that you did paired your ace and were trying to represent a monster [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Thx for the answer also.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake there was 3-betting 4th, because that tightens my range considerably. I still had a chance on 5th (I was a 2:1 dog though, I had A2348) but because of my re-raise on 4th it was way more than a 50% chance I'd paired my A. That in mind, betting 5th was bad, but only a 1bb mistake. The re-raise on 4th probably cost me the pot though. On 6th I was pretty sure you'd paired, at the end I couldn't tell because it shuffles the cards. On the river, standard crying call. Next time I'll river a 5.

[Seb86]

whats your screenname on FTP ? cant find the HH

[RustyBrooks]

I'll find the hand and post it here in a second. I feel kind of embarrassed about it but what can you do.

In the mean time, here's a chart
http://www.rustybrooks.com/tmp/chart.png

Note that if you think you can win 2bb/100 your BR requirements can be muuuuuch lower (around 160bb in the chart, compared to 350bb for 1bb/100). So if you're killing 1/2 take a shot at 2/4 with 150-200bb but be prepared to fall back.

Also note that going below the minimums is done at your own peril, as you can see the ROR shoots up dramatically with small decreases in bankroll.

And SG is right, IF you are disciplined and call fall back whenever you lose too much, you won't go broke unless you fall back to the minimum and can't go any further.

And also I think it's wrong to think "I have this many $, so I play at 1/2" - play at a range around your main number. I'm mostly playing 1/2 at this point but also some .5/1, some .25/.5 if there's no good games higher. Haven't dabbled in 2/4 yet, my bankroll is still only at about $500.

[RustyBrooks]

Oh wait, I guess I should ask, do you mind if I post the hand? It's not exactly outting you but if you don't want me to, I won't.

[Seb86]

sure post it

[jbrennen]

There's a concept called the Kelly Criterion for achieving optimum long term growth in a betting game where you have a quantifiable edge, and where you can choose your bet size at will.

Essentially, a modified version of the Kelly Criterion, applied to poker, indicates that for a given winrate and standard deviation (in BB/100), you achieve optimal growth when your bankroll is equal to the square of your standard deviation divided by your winrate.

To use the numbers from earlier in the thread, if you have a winrate of 1 BB/100 and a standard deviation of 15 BB/100, you will achieve optimum growth if you're playing with a bankroll of 225 BBs (15 times 15 divided by 1).

In practice, this means that you'd take your bankroll, divide it by 225, and play a stake level which comes close to that number. If your bankroll is $600, for instance, you'd come up with a big bet size of $2.67; the nearest game to that would be $1/$2, so that's where you should be playing.


One obvious thing about using the Kelly Criterion -- you need to move up or down in stakes when the formula says that you should, if you intend to play at the optimum level. If you're that guy with the +1 BB/100 winrate, 15 BB/100 standard deviation, and your bankroll falls below $337.50, now that your optimal big bet size has fallen below $1.50, you need to move down to the $0.50/$1 game.

Note that the risk of ruin with this method is theoretically zero, because you'd keep playing smaller and smaller stakes as you lose money. In the real world, there's a minimum stake level where you could go broke, of course. But if you start with $600, if you keep moving down in stakes when appropriate, and if you still go broke, you need to re-examine the idea that you actually are a winning player...