How much bankroll do i need?

Bananna man

Hey,

I've been playin $5 STT's for a while now and have built up a bit of cash. How much of a bankroll should i have before i go up to the $10 STT's?

henbane

$11?

Culchie

$150 + $15 fees, $165 should be plenty 15 Buy-Ins, you can always change down a level if you drop below $100.

ArmaniJeanss

Start $10 STTs now.
Whatever money you have in your account now, call it X.
If you fall below X, go back to $5 STTs.
If you remain above X, stick with $10 STTs.
You will yo-yo a bit like a Sunderland, then hopefully after a while you will be permanently entrenched in the higher level like a Bolton !!

Bankroll is a bit moot at these levels (e.g, I have enough spare cash that I could play $50 STTs, however it would be madness for me to do so skill-wise at the moment)

Iceman78

Dont sell yourself short Amarillo. You should watch some of the $50 stt's. They are a bit better but not much better than $10 stts's.

I felt comfortable at $10stt's after a while and stepped up to $20s which has been going well.

I have had a few wins in MTT's and got my bankroll up so been playing a few $50 stts and i find them not too different to $20s. Lots of maniacs still playing at this level.

Drakar

Iceman78 wrote:

...Lots of maniacs still playing at this level.

Interestingly, I think the reason for this may be that many poor players feel that they are good players and they are eager to get away from the $10 tables where any old fool will call them with anything.

clint_silver

i usually adopt the same advice posted earlier, make some profit at one level, move up, if you lose a couple, go back down. Be a Bolton or a Wigan instead of a sunderland as it so aptly put. impose your game so you survive until your comfortable and think you go even further.

I play the STTs on stars. mainly 33$ or 55$ tables.

I started on the 11$ tables a few weeks ago and did ok so stepped up to 22$. still did ok, ie, was in the money maybe 3 out of 5. So then stepped up again to 33/55 and have maintained my slight profit making, Ive made forays into 77 and 109 tables and have won money but dont want to regularly frequent these tables yet as Im about 1 for 1 there.
Ive noticed no difference in the bulk of players on the tables no matter what the money involved. think Ive played 109 3-4 times now and one of the occasions, in one hand early on, 3 players (not me ) went all in after flop came something KQ7, and of the 3 hands i think there was A7, 44 and, K10. Ive never seen that kind of play in the low cash games.
I will say you will get a better player in the higher games, Ive seen some great raising and reraising I thought Id only see in cash games. but in general, I see no difference between your average player, i think its just they play the tables with the amount of money that they can afford to lose.

Doc Farrell

I just won a 25 dollar stt (which is better than an std for $25 - gettit!) and three of us were all in preflop on the first hand.
First guy raises 12 times the bb to 360, another guy calls, I go all in with queens. first guy calls. has jacks. that is just about acceptable play.
2nd guy calls - has ace 6! but they were suited! still brutal.
I took a gamble so i accept my play wasn't great but man the others played like i do in $2 tournies.
So don't be worried about ur skill level. play if u have a bankroll of say 6 or 7 buy ins AND have a history of getting in the money half the time u play.

the only time i consistently lose is when i dont have patience. But PATIENCE and some luck should get u the cash.

sorry about the crappy joke in the first line.

finally, the players in 25 games are for the most part better than $5 ones. but not by much. there can be tough s.o.b's on those $5 games! but when u get down to the last three i want to be up against thinkers and not just all in merchants. because u can't outplay someone who's just dancing the tango with lady luck!
gl d.

The C Kid

Bit suprised by some of the advice so far.

For me 30-50 buy-ins would be the bare minimum if I was considering moving up through the lower levels like yourself. I moved through some earlier levels with around 40 but would probably need at least 100 to consider moving up a level now.

Of course bankrolls for SNGs are pretty much at your own preference, and is dependant on many factors. Obviously your previous ROI at other levels and your expected ROI at your new level need to be considered as does the % risk of ruin you feel comfortable playing at.

clint_silver

For me 30-50 buy-ins would be the bare minimum if I was considering moving up through the lower levels like yourself. I moved through some earlier levels with around 40 but would probably need at least 100 to consider moving up a level now.

Of course bankrolls for SNGs are pretty much at your own preference, and is dependant on many factors. Obviously your previous ROI at other levels and your expected ROI at your new level need to be considered as does the % risk of ruin you feel comfortable playing at.

Are you saying 30-50 buyins for STTs? I dont think you are but if so I dont get that. I know Im new at this but I waited until I had like 5-6 buyins worked up before I went up a level in the stars STTs. you only need to play 2-3 before you know if your game is going to stand up in the higher ground, ie, get in the money. If your game holds up, you stay, if it doesnt you go back down.

The C Kid

clint_silver wrote:

Are you saying 30-50 buyins for STTs? I dont think you are but if so I dont get that. I know Im new at this but I waited until I had like 5-6 buyins worked up before I went up a level in the stars STTs. you only need to play 2-3 before you know if your game is going to stand up in the higher ground, ie, get in the money. If your game holds up, you stay, if it doesnt you go back down.

Yes, 30-50 for lower level STTs.

As for the rest of your post I'm a bit stunned. You cannot be seriously surely?

After 6 games its impossible to say whether you are a successful player at any level.

Culchie

The C Kid wrote:

Yes, 30-50 for lower level STTs.

As for the rest of your post I'm a bit stunned. You cannot be seriously surely?

After 6 games its impossible to say whether you are a successful player at any level.

At $5 I think 30 STT's is a little over cautious, especially when you can change back down.
If he has worked up to 15+ buy in's, he might as well try the next level, and see how it goes.
If he is playing and winning $5 STT's when he should be playing and winning $10 STT's he's in effect losing out on Income.

As the levels progress above $20 I'd be inclined to increase the buy-in criteria up to 20 at least.

5 or 6 is way way too tight though.


By the way, there's no harm in cashing out a few quid every now and again and enjoy your winnings:)

Iceman78

Im with culchie on this one. About 20 times the buy in is right for STT's as its easy to move back down and try to build it back up if you have a bad run at any stage.

On PPP, i play between $20 and $50 STT's at moment. Would like to stick at one buy in level but never enough games going so just play the next one starting.

I keep getting tempted to play a couple of $100 STT's as i would have the correct buy in amount but not sure if im up to that standard yet although i thought that about the 50s before i started playing them.

Also agree with culchie about taking some of your bankroll out now and again and enjoying spending it.

clint_silver

As for the rest of your post I'm a bit stunned. You cannot be seriously surely?

After 6 games its impossible to say whether you are a successful player at any level.

Ive been meaning to do this for a while now to help myself as much as anything but heres my poker story so far.
Im playing about 6 months. Not loaded but am ok with not too many other commitments so have a largish BR. I probably started off too quick and was playing 3/6 cash on PPP with about 6-7 weeks playing. Held my own and was making money while playing 3 tables at a time which all sounds a bit extreme when I read some posts here. Actually it sounds very extreme after reading some posts here.
Anyway, for about 4-5 weeks around dec/jan i was playing 2-3 3/6 tables a night and took huge swings, I mean I was up 9k one night. another night Id be down 4k. My play wasnt good enough. How could it have been with so much to learn?

Anyway, took one really bad loss one night where I lost 1500 in one hand after i clicked a button without thinking, 6789 was on the board and I had 10 5 after being called in the BB hence me being in the hand, Id never have been in the hand otherwise. On the river I substantially raised (about 300$), was put all (about 1450$) in by another very tight player who had about the same stack as me. I called without thinking, he had J10 and bust me. Now, it didnt take me weeks, days, hours or even minutes to realise I should never have called the all in. Thing is I realised at that point i had no business being on a 3/6 table, not because I cant put up with losing the 1.5k, but because I should have seen that the villian had J10. As long as I cant see those hands when theyre glaring then I shouldnt be at that level in a cash game. I sat back for a few days and took stock and realised that my game cant be that bad if i was making money regularly at 3/6 so need to play games with a parachute, hence the STTs on stars and PPPs 1v1s where youre never going to any more then what you put in at the start. If youre game isnt holding up, you'll know about it straight away, not weeks later when your roll is gone. So after a recommendation from someone here actually, I took up the STT circuit on stars.
Deposited 200$, Started on 11$ tables and in a week made money 6-7 out of 10. So Im thinking this is ok, on to the 22$, got 2nd,2nd,1st on my first 3 tourneys so on to the 33$. Didnt do so well there, broke even on the first 4-5 games over 3 days but then got in the money 4 out of the next 5 so thought this is ok, on to 55$, same there. As i said earlier, a couple of brief forays into the higher 77 and 109 tables where I see some mad play but also at times a much higher calibre of play that I as of yet cant cope with so I think 55 is my level for now. rereading the above, the above might sound a bit bull****ty but it is true story (with a little help from harrington on holdem) and you can find me on those talbes on stars 3-4 nights a week now. If I was losing regularly, trust me I wouldnt be there.

On to your question about knowing after 6 games if your game is good. If not after 6, then how many? 10? 20? 50? If youre only breaking even then yes, stay at the level, but if youre making on one level after 5 move up, if you dont make money at the next level go back down. you're only ever going to lose 5 buyins. Obviously everyone has there limits, i mean I can lose 1.5k in a cash game but I got scared on the 77 and 109 tables even tho I broke even.

Say 50 games at up to an hour a game at 1 game a time at 2-3 games a night at 4 nights a week is 6-7 weeks play. If I play 4 nights a week and am making money each night I dont need to go 6-7 weeks to realise I could be wasting my time and losing money by playing at a lower level. But thats just me.
No doubt theres going to be a holes punched in my above comments and thoughts as Im under no illusions the majority of players here know more about the game then I, but I welcome them if it makes me better at poker.

Ive just read the last couple of replies, and probably yes about 15 might about right, 20 and upwards tho is way too much for STT.

I keep getting tempted to play a couple of $100 STT's as i would have the correct buy in amount but not sure if im up to that standard yet although i thought that about the 50s before i started playing them.

I do the same for whatever is the next tourney starting. If I have enough time to play 3 a night and Ive won money on the first 2 at 55 I'll play a 77 or a 109. That might be a way to let yourself try the higher ones (obviously apply same principle for your level) without worrying about losuing on the night as youre probably up anyway.

The C Kid

Again. Stunned.

clint_silver wrote:

Started on 11$ tables and in a week made money 6-7 out of 10. So Im thinking this is ok, on to the 22$, got 2nd,2nd,1st on my first 3 tourneys so on to the 33$. Didnt do so well there, broke even on the first 4-5 games over 3 days but then got in the money 4 out of the next 5 so thought this is ok, on to 55$, same there.

This is bad. Your samples are so small they are practically worthless. After 10 games you could be a semi-comatose vegetable luckbox rather than a winning poker player and still achieve these results.

clint_silver wrote:

On to your question about knowing after 6 games if your game is good. If not after 6, then how many? 10? 20? 50?

A sample of 100 games is inconsequential. At 500, you may have some sort of semi-realistic idea of whether you can beat the game as opposed to the guessing you are presently involved in. I would try and play a 1000 at each level starting at the $11s. 10,000 would be better but is probably an unrealistic aim until you reach the upper echelons of SNGs. After ten games you had a 70% ITM, do you think this is obtainable over a significant sample of SNGs at any level?

clint_silver wrote:

If I play 4 nights a week and am making money each night I dont need to go 6-7 weeks to realise I could be wasting my time and losing money by playing at a lower level.

Again, as above. This is just wrong, so wrong. Eventually you will run bad, and worse than you ever thought possible (not sure who to attribute that quote too, but its not mine). With money management and game selection like this, this will hurt real bad. Now is the time to prepare for this.

.

Doc Farrell

You the man Clint Silver! Don't worry about the C kid, i got a feeling he's another maths head from trinity.

Its all about experience baby! Play the game u know in ur gut u can afford. Man am I sorry I opened this thread.

have a good weekend!

ArmaniJeanss

The C Kid wrote:

A sample of 100 games is inconsequential. At 500, you may have some sort of semi-realistic idea of whether you can beat the game as opposed to the guessing you are presently involved in. I would try and play a 1000 at each level starting at the $11s. 10,000 would be better but is probably an unrealistic aim until you reach the upper echelons of SNGs. After ten games you had a 70% ITM, do you think this is obtainable over a significant sample of SNGs at any level?

.

I don't accept this, CKid. So long as you are willing to quickly move down as well as up through the levels then do it - to play 1000 STTs at say $3 level, to have a decent ROI but not move up would be complete and utter madness. I played about 70-100 at each of the levels I played ($1,$2,$3,$5,$10, currently $15) before moving up. However I moved down a couple of times as well when things didnt go great immediately. But If I'd done what you say then I'd still be at $1 or $2 level.
Its wrong to move up too quick, agreed. But its as bad to stay too long at the same level as well.

RoundTower

I have at least 100-200 buyins for the STTs I play. I'm not an STT expert though and I expect 30 is OK if you are comfortable moving down again if you are losing money.

The C Kid

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

..... to play 1000 STTs at say $3 level, to have a decent ROI but not move up would be complete and utter madness.....

Hence why I noted starting at the €11s.

Also a set of 1000 sounds like a huge amount but its nothing really, if you're four-tabling, let alone eight-tabling, it won't take you long.

Agree with you about moving up the levels as you feel comfortable though, and it depends on alot of factors like personal preferences and value of money.

Also how can you realisitically know your ROI after a sample of 70-100?

Wallko

its rediculous to think that someone who s playing 11$ stts will be comfortable 4 or 8 tabling, there level of play will drop significantly for every extra table they have open

The C Kid

Wallko wrote:

its rediculous to think that someone who s playing 11$ stts will be comfortable 4 or 8 tabling, there level of play will drop significantly for every extra table they have open

Apologies, I thought Clint mentioned 4-tabling in his post, but it was 3-tabling.

cardshark202

Clint, everything the C Kid has said is about right and you should really take note of this sound advice. If you're taking this seriously you have to accpet the harsh realities of whats required for STT play.

Iago

Not my work but a very good read for all who are getting going...




Having read all about variance on these forums and witnessed first hand the highs and lows I decided to simulate the results for a winning SNG player over a number of games played.

First off I decided that the player would exclusively play $20+$2 tables and that they would place:

1st - 14%
2nd - 12%
3rd - 14%

This results in a winning player ITM = 40% and ROI = 21.8%. So not the worlds best player but a solid winning player nonetheless.

I then decided that the player has decided to hammer party on 4 tables playing 50 in a day, 250 in a week, 1,000 a month and 12,000 a year.

THE RESULTS FOR A DAY (50 SNG's)

So I ran the simulation 10,000 times each time generating the result of playing a block of 50 SNGs.

The very worst day our player lost $580 and their best day resulted in a $1,400 win - but these are extreme results as on average our player won $240.

The interesting bit is that 10% of days resulted in losing $80 or MORE. 20% (including the previous 10%) of days played resulted in only winning $20 or less.

On the flip side our player went on a tear and won $580 or more 10% of the time and $460 or more 20% of the time.

However to me the interesting part was that 20% of the time this player would play all day and end up roughly breaking even or worse (and sometimes much worse). The other point to make here is that this player is absolutely immune from tilt i.e. the result of their next game is in no way affected by any of the previous results. So to reiterate this player will play 50 SNGs and 20% of the time they will breakeven or lose - and this pure variance and is never due to tilt induced bad play.


THE RESULTS FOR A WEEK (250 SNG's)

Once again the simulation was run for 10,000 blocks of 250 SNG's.

The extreme results for the week were losing $1020 and winning $3280 on average our player made $1180. So our player witnessed a 46 buy in downswing over 250 SNG's - which kind of make me wince even though this was only one result in 10,000.

However the good news is that as you might expect some of the variance seen in the days results is being ironed out by the larger volume of SNGS played. Now the player only breaks even or loses about 3% of the time - so maybe one or two weeks per year our player breaks even or worse.

Again there is upside with 10% of the weeks being $1940 or better and 20% being $1680 or better.

THE RESULTS FOR A MONTH (1000 SNG's)

Once again the simulation was run for 10,000 blocks of 1000 SNG's.

The good news here is that in 10,000 months (833 years!) of results our player never had a losing month with their worst result being a win of $1060.

On average our player won $4800. 90% of the months fell within a band starting at $2920 and ending in $6700. So I guess a fair spread of results but I would feel a lot happier never posting a negative month as this really would be awful!

THE RESULTS FOR A YEAR (12000 SNG's)

Once again the simulation was run for 10,000 blocks of 12,000 SNG's. If you played this in real time finishing around now then you might have bumped in to Jesus having by then completed 80% of the years!

Anyhow over a years worth of SNG's our players very worst year was 'only' winning $42,860. On average they won $57,540 which would have bought quite a lot back then! 90% of years fell between winning $51,100 and $64,460.


Anyway I thought that I would share this info as I know that it will help me the next time I break even over 50 SNG's and ponder whether I should have stopped after the first 4 when I was $52 up.

Next time this happens I will know that due to sheer randomness this result will happen about 20% of the time and that it is not some conspiracy due to cashing out or Party being bent.

Take a step back and see the larger picture.

ArmaniJeanss

Iago wrote:

Not my work but a very good read for all who are getting going...

Cheers for posting, very interesting stuff.

Iago

no bother, it shows why you need to have a reasonable bankroll for whatever level you're jumping in at. In terms of when you should move up, I think you need to have played 1K plus at a given level to be sure you can beat it before you move on.

If you're happy to lose and re-deposit then you can of course ignore that, but it's not a good idea in terms of bankroll management. You can go on runs of 15-20 out of the money fairly easily (I know I have) and runs where you cash in 15-20 in a row. 5 games means nothing in the greater scheme of things imho

spectre

Very interesting article - a brilliant demonstration of variance in action. Every poker player should read this

wayfarer

Yeah, but from my experience, bad streaks haven't been just due to variance, there has also been a degree of sloppy and complacent play, and a few people on here have posted saying the same.

That is a great post just for pointing out the importance of br management but it would be detrimental to start thinking that it is purely statistical when you're on a downswing and carry on without considering your game, thinking that soon enough it will just even itself out and you will be back on winning form.

Does provide a nice bit of reassurance though!

Glowingmind

Bananna man wrote:

Hey,

I've been playin $5 STT's for a while now and have built up a bit of cash. How much of a bankroll should i have before i go up to the $10 STT's?

As most of the folks have stated here, the standard in the $10 stts isn't all that different from the $5's
It all comes down to mow much you're willing to lose. If you're winning/placing in the money consistantly at $5, then by all means you should move up. You just need to be prepared for those ugly streaks where you're outside the money 6-7 times in a row.

peeko

Iago, thanks that was one of the most interesting and helpful posts I've read on SitnGos

Doc Farrell

Iago! u failed to mention what we discussed in that $25 game on pp the other day! shame on u!
go on, admit it, at the end of the day, its all about whether lady luck takes a shine to u! isn't it? no?
i'll get me coat.....

Glowingmind

Just to illustrate the point of there being rubbish players at all the lower levels of STT's:

***** Hand History for Game 3871175114 *****
NL Texas Hold'em $22 Buy-in Trny:21617250 Level:2 Blinds(30/60) - Sunday, April 02, 06:29:57 ET 2006
Table Kindred Spirit (Real Money)
Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 8
Seat 3: kamehachi2 ( $1250 )
Seat 5: DADDY04 ( $4210 )
Seat 6: nycwritten ( $1070 )
Seat 7: thebo980 ( $2210 )
Seat 8: Motswari ( $1650 )
Seat 9: ChEaPsKAt333 ( $4115 )
Seat 10: Iceman007555 ( $1340 )
Seat 4: Gl0wingmind ( $4155 )
Trny:21617250 Level:2
Blinds(30/60)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Gl0wingmind [ 6c 4d ]
kamehachi2 folds.
Gl0wingmind folds.
DADDY04 raises [315].
nycwritten folds.
thebo980 folds.
Motswari folds.
ChEaPsKAt333 folds.
Iceman007555 is all-In [1280]
DADDY04 calls [1025].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 5d, Th, Jd ]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Qd ]
** Dealing River ** [ 7s ]
DADDY04 shows [ 9h, 3h ] high card queen.
Iceman007555 shows [ Ad, 7d ] a flush, ace high.
Iceman007555 wins 2710 chips from the main pot with a flush, ace high.
Game #3871176727 starts.


*only explanation for DADDY04's play might be that he has notes on iceman to suggest that he'll raise/go all in with pretty much anything(which he does a few hands later and cracks my aces with a rivered straight. Thankfully i had enough left to claw my way back into the money) But 9h3h.....

DeadParrot

As a relative newbie to the game this has been very informative to me.
I deposited fifty quid into paddypower and have reloaded once.
I started at the $2 tables and honestly can say I found them a lot harder than my current $10 level. I've made a rule that every time I get to 300 I cash 200 out and as such have an extra 200 euro a week, which in my inexperienced mind isnt too shabby. My main problem with BR managment is the tranparency between the PP betting interface and the poker one. I've actually blew my br once or twice on tips in the horseracing forum and as such have decided to leave the nags well enough alone
That said Cheltenham helped me out of a tight spot where I had a wee bit of a losing streak.

I know a guy who put a ton into ppp about a month ago and is now up to 2K playing $25 sng's. So I suppose its a mixture of what you are prepared to lose and what you think you can beat. Watching him, I got a feeling I may be following him up in the near future. I think I'll need at least 400 br to do this.

pok3rplaya

DeadParrot wrote:

I've made a rule that every time I get to 300 I cash 200 out and as such have an extra 200 euro a week,

You are limiting your earning potential soooo much by doing this. Bigger bankroll = higher stakes = more money.

ArmaniJeanss

pok3rplaya wrote:

You are limiting your earning potential soooo much by doing this. Bigger bankroll = higher stakes = more money.

There is a lot of sense in what you say. But you need to be wary of letting a situation develop where the only thing your winnings mean to you is a way into bigger stake games. You have to be willing to cash (at least some of) your bankroll at some stage and enjoy it on non-poker stuff, otherwise what is the point of playing in the first place.

DeadParrot

my bankroll pays my credit card bills and allows me to have more money..
As Armani said, whats the point of playing for money unless you plan spending/keeping the money you win?

pok3rplaya

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

There is a lot of sense in what you say. But you need to be wary of letting a situation develop where the only thing your winnings mean to you is a way into bigger stake games. You have to be willing to cash (at least some of) your bankroll at some stage and enjoy it on non-poker stuff, otherwise what is the point of playing in the first place.

True. I think its easier to enjoy your winnings when they start to become substantial though and this won't happen at low stakes. The best thing to do IMO is to play yourself to a level where you're starting to get comfortable money (ie. something like 100NL or $33 S&G's) then start to withdraw. It's more profitable long term and with a bit of effort its not hard to take out $2k a month at 100NL.

Iago

Doc Farrell wrote:

Iago! u failed to mention what we discussed in that $25 game on pp the other day! shame on u!
go on, admit it, at the end of the day, its all about whether lady luck takes a shine to u! isn't it? no?
i'll get me coat.....

Lady Luck...yeah..that b!tch has it in for me

mind you with the hands you were hitting who needs ability