What bankroll would you recommend?

Sparky1808

What bankroll would you recommend for playing the following stakes:

$0.25/$0.50 NL =

$0.50/$1 NL =

$1/$2 NL =

$2/$4 NL =

$3/6 NL =

Cheers,
Sparky

breadmonkey

Sparky, no hijack intended, just an addition;)

$2 STT =
$3 STT =
$5 STT =

(All NL)

TacT

10 buyins as a bare minimum for all of them

Dub13

breadmonkey wrote:

Sparky, no hijack intended, just an addition;)

$2 STT =
$3 STT =
$5 STT =

(All NL)

I play STT AND MTT all the time and I would not move up ontill I have 12 times the buy in.I must add this is all short handed (6 players).So that would be...

$2 STT = $24
$3 STT = $36
$5 STT = $60

Shortstack

What bankroll would you recommend for playing the following stakes:

$0.25/$0.50 NL =$750-$1000 depending on your style

$0.50/$1 NL =$1500-$2000

$1/$2 NL =$3000-$4000

$2/$4 NL =$6000-$8000

$3/6 NL =$9000-$12000

The more aggressive you are the more you need also if you play shorthanded you will need more to cover the added variance. These figures are if you are a longterm winning player and do not want to deposit any money if you lose. If you have a seperate income then you can allow an amount per month and set your level accordingly. For example if you want to play 1 session a week and you can afford to lose $800 then play .50/1 then you have two full buy ins per session to play with.

If you want to move up quicker take a shot earlier but at a level where if you drop a buy in you do not have to drop down below what you should be playing at. for example you are playing $1/$2 and have $5000 you are short for moving up to $2/$4 but if you drop the $400 buy in you will have $4600 which is more than enough to carry on at $1/$2.

The_Chopper

Shortstack wrote:

What bankroll would you recommend for playing the following stakes:

$0.25/$0.50 NL =$750-$1000 depending on your style

$0.50/$1 NL =$1500-$2000

$1/$2 NL =$3000-$4000

$2/$4 NL =$6000-$8000

$3/6 NL =$9000-$12000

The more aggressive you are the more you need also if you play shorthanded you will need more to cover the added variance. These figures are if you are a longterm winning player and do not want to deposit any money if you lose. If you have a seperate income then you can allow an amount per month and set your level accordingly. For example if you want to play 1 session a week and you can afford to lose $800 then play .50/1 then you have two full buy ins per session to play with.

If you want to move up quicker take a shot earlier but at a level where if you drop a buy in you do not have to drop down below what you should be playing at. for example you are playing $1/$2 and have $5000 you are short for moving up to $2/$4 but if you drop the $400 buy in you will have $4600 which is more than enough to carry on at $1/$2.

What bankroll would you recommend having if you are playing €1-€2 live cash games then? How much would you recommend buying in for at a game?

Shortstack

The_Chopper wrote:

What bankroll would you recommend having if you are playing €1-€2 live cash games then? How much would you recommend buying in for at a game?

Depends on the game. Does it have a max buy in? I would use the same criteria as for online but adjusting depending on the game. Looser and shorthanded games have more variance so I would be looking towards the top end of the bankroll limits.

If the game is not restricted buy in then you need to find a table where €200 is enough to play because that is all you should be buying in for if you have €3000-€4000. You should not be risking more than 5-8% at one table.

The_Chopper

Shortstack wrote:

Depends on the game. Does it have a max buy in? I would use the same criteria as for online but adjusting depending on the game. Looser and shorthanded games have more variance so I would be looking towards the top end of the bankroll limits.

If the game is not restricted buy in then you need to find a table where €200 is enough to play because that is all you should be buying in for if you have €3000-€4000. You should not be risking more than 5-8% at one table.

Thanks - I tend to buy in anywhere from 150 - 400 depending on:
the game (loose, shorthanded etc)
the size of the stacks on the table
the type of players

Shortstack

The_Chopper wrote:

Thanks - I tend to buy in anywhere from 150 - 400 depending on:
the game (loose, shorthanded etc)
the size of the stacks on the table
the type of players

Not by your bankroll then? :eek:

The_Chopper

Well I've never really considered my bankroll as a factor when buying into these games. I've only ever considered my bankroll when deciding how many times I am willing to buy back in should I go bust.
If my bankroll was ever under 1K I don't think I'd play in them - luckily I've a healthy role.
In any given night I will generally walk away once I've dropped 800 - I never see the point chasing back money after that.

Imposter

I'd also raise the number of buy-ins if we're talking about Omaha here. Full table Omaha is roughly the same as shorthanded holdem wrt buy-ins needed imo.

Sparky1808

Shortstack wrote:

What bankroll would you recommend for playing the following stakes:

$0.25/$0.50 NL =$750-$1000 depending on your style

$0.50/$1 NL =$1500-$2000

$1/$2 NL =$3000-$4000

$2/$4 NL =$6000-$8000

$3/6 NL =$9000-$12000

That's the sort of answer I was looking for, Cheers Shortstack.

Marq

The_Chopper wrote:

In any given night I will generally walk away once I've dropped 800 - I never see the point chasing back money after that.

there's never any point in "chasing money" but that doesn't mean that you should stop playing. How much you are losing shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether to continue to play or not, only whether you think you have positive equity in the game. If you're stuck for 800 because you've taken two really bad suckouts, but the game is full of drunken idiots who each have stacks in excess of 3k each, is it not worth staying and taking their money?

Granted, often the fact that you are losing in a game is an indicator that you should not be in the game in question, but if you have just gotten unlucky and the game is still good, you should stay unless you think that your play will be affected by how much you are down (needless to say, it shouldn't, but that's easier said than done - if you think that you're liable to go on tilt to a point where you no longer have an edge in the game, get out). Numbers are nothing, correct decisions are everything.

Back to the original question:
I think a very good player can easily get by with only 10 buy-ins as a bankroll for online NL games. If all the money in the world that you can afford to lose is 10,000, and you can beat 5/10 NL, then play it. If you want to reduce your Risk of Ruin (and most people do), then I would advocate a bankrolL of at least twice that.

The_Chopper

Marq wrote:

there's never any point in "chasing money" but that doesn't mean that you should stop playing. How much you are losing shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether to continue to play or not, only whether you think you have positive equity in the game. If you're stuck for 800 because you've taken two really bad suckouts, but the game is full of drunken idiots who each have stacks in excess of 3k each, is it not worth staying and taking their money?

Granted, often the fact that you are losing in a game is an indicator that you should not be in the game in question, but if you have just gotten unlucky and the game is still good, you should stay unless you think that your play will be affected by how much you are down (needless to say, it shouldn't, but that's easier said than done - if you think that you're liable to go on tilt to a point where you no longer have an edge in the game, get out). Numbers are nothing, correct decisions are everything.

Back to the original question:
I think a very good player can easily get by with only 10 buy-ins as a bankroll for online NL games. If all the money in the world that you can afford to lose is 10,000, and you can beat 5/10 NL, then play it. If you want to reduce your Risk of Ruin (and most people do), then I would advocate a bankrolL of at least twice that.

Cheers for the advice Marq.
I generally find in cash games that if I'm been sucked out early on, it generally doesn't stop over that night. I know this is generalising - that's just my opinion on it. Also when drunken idiots win a few pots I've noticed they tend to get up and cash out (obviously they're a little smarter then we give them credit for).
To be honest I find it very difficult playing against the "mungs" at a poker table - they're the people I tend to drop money to when I loose.

Marq

My experience is very different. As I'm not superstitious, I don't believe that just because you lose early on you will continue losing. If your attitude tends to be adversely affected by losing, then you will probably lose moreif you continue to play. However, if you clear your decision-making processes of results-oriented thinking, then losing will not affect your play, and it most certainly does not affect how the cards are going to come out on the next hand. Each hand of poker is an entirely new situation. Perceptions may have changed, stack sizes may have changed, new players may have joined the table; but before the cards are dealt, you have exactly the same chance of winning this hand as the next one.

Drunken idiots are your bread and butter in live cash games. When they leave because they made a couple of hundred quid, more drunken idiots will generally take their place. In my experience, they stay until they lose their stacks, or their friends finish playing blackjack. but usually when they lose their stacks.

On a side note I prefer if the only person that knows me at the table is the dealer.

doc71

Dub13 wrote:

I play STT AND MTT all the time and I would not move up ontill I have 12 times the buy in.I must add this is all short handed (6 players).So that would be...

$2 STT = $24
$3 STT = $36
$5 STT = $60

Are there players making money just playing STTs at those buy-ins, or would u need to mix it with cash games.

The_Chopper

Marq wrote:

My experience is very different. As I'm not superstitious, I don't believe that just because you lose early on you will continue losing. If your attitude tends to be adversely affected by losing, then you will probably lose moreif you continue to play. However, if you clear your decision-making processes of results-oriented thinking, then losing will not affect your play, and it most certainly does not affect how the cards are going to come out on the next hand. Each hand of poker is an entirely new situation. Perceptions may have changed, stack sizes may have changed, new players may have joined the table; but before the cards are dealt, you have exactly the same chance of winning this hand as the next one.

Drunken idiots are your bread and butter in live cash games. When they leave because they made a couple of hundred quid, more drunken idiots will generally take their place. In my experience, they stay until they lose their stacks, or their friends finish playing blackjack. but usually when they lose their stacks.

Drunken idiots are defo bread and butter and what you're saying makes perfect sense. There has been occasions when I've been into a table for as much as 1200, kept at it, pulled it around and made a profit.

I feel that if you sit down at a cash game, buy in for say 500, get AA and QQ early, get them both cracked to bad beats that maybe it isn't going to be your night. Yes this might be a state of mind, and yes more disciplined players can pull it back - but sometimes I just prefer to walk away.

Marq wrote:

On a side note I prefer if the only person that knows me at the table is the dealer.

I much prefer when nobody knows me, 100% agree with that

Amaru

doc71 wrote:

Are there players making money just playing STTs at those buy-ins, or would u need to mix it with cash games.

It depends on what you classify as "making money", but i would say no, it's hard to make too much at these stakes. You have to be playing at least $20 stt's with a decent ROI to make them worth playing.

mewso

Amaru wrote:

It depends on what you classify as "making money", but i would say no, it's hard to make too much at these stakes. You have to be playing at least $20 stt's with a decent ROI to make them worth playing.

I agree. You should only be playing $1, $2, $3, $5 STTs with an aim to moving up to $25 and beyond. I'm slogging it out on $2 at the moment mainly just to pass the time in the evenings after work but the idea is to move up to $3 soon and so on. I actually need to gather my BR together. It's all over the place PS, All-In, VC, PP (locked in place due to only one easy direction - lodging), Neteller. So disorganised. Turning professional is not on the agenda.

Dub13

I agree you need to be playing at least $20 stt's to be making any kind of decent cash,preferably $50