An idea for a non-standard bankroll strategy

Imposter

A combination of Dev's proposition thread and Flipper's (and whoever it was before) challenge idea has got me thinking.

Given the following assumptions:
- you're playing NL/PL cash games and you always buy-in for the max (and the max is 100BB's)
- You don't need the money and never (or at least hardly ever) cash out - ie your goal is to move up the stakes

Given a set amount for a bankroll say 100$ what is the best/quickest way to run that up to a higher amount? We want to reduce the risk of ruin while allowing ourselves play at the highest stakes possible.

I was thinking a strategy of having 1 or 2 buy-ins in your bankroll behind you at all times should work. Let's say we work off 100 and you start at a 50$ game (1 tabling). If you lose the 50$ then you play the 25$ game. If you eventually get it up to 200 you play the 100$ game.

Applying this to multitabling: let's assume 3 tables:
With 100$ you could play say 3 25$ tables leaving 25$ behind. If you get to 150$ you can play 1 50$ table and 2 25$ tables leaving yourself 1 buy-in for your highest stakes game. So at 175$ you'd have 2 50$ games and 1 25$ game. Then at 200$ you'd be playing 3 50$ games. If you rise or drop into the next level you pretty much instantly close one table and open up a lower or higher table as required.

What are the problems with such a strategy? (assuming we're a bit away from the lowest possible levels)

Is 20 (or more) buy-ins the standard bankroll recommendation because people have difficulty moving down levels?

One problem I can see is that you never have a lot of info about your opponents are you are constantly moving up/down levels.

Ste05

I'd say go for at least 4. The main reason for this is, that, just say there's a huge donating Donk at the table, and he wins a buy-in off you by some mad outdraw, e.g. AA v AQ, All-In PF and he hits a straight of flush, then you want to have something left in your BR to re-load, before he goes broke or leaves without the Risk of going broke.

I'm not advocating a 4-Buy-In rule, it's just one thought that popped into my Head, I haven't thought about it properly, but busy busy at the moment, I might think about it more later and come back with a more expansive post.

Off the top of my head, I'd say a 10 Buy-In rule really is the minimum you should use though.

bohsman

Fold Aces preflop shorthanded and play like a lunatic otherwise?

TacT

hmm, I guess you could jumpstart things by first of all having a decent 20 buyin roll then using between 2-5 buyins that you have built up on top of those original 20 to play higher stakes games but you will have to discipline yourself to drop back to your original 20 buyins when things go pear shaped.

10 is going to need to be the bare minimum for a roll and it's really pushing it, I used to work off 10 grinding .50/1 buying in for the full amount but you really have to play weak-tight ****e or you're a gonner. You can't play properly and any hits you take to your roll seem monumental. Having 20 you are way more comfortable when you take a hit.

Let's assume you have $500 on your roll. I don't see a problem with taking 2 buyins to .25/.50c for $50 as long as if you take a nosedive back to $400 you drop back to .10/.20c with a $20 buyin religiously.

No problem for someone very disciplined, big problem for someone who is not.

Imposter

Why is 20+ buy-ins seen as the standard though? If you are a pro and need the security of being at a certain level in order to earn enough then its different but if you are only playing as a hobby and the goal is to get to higher and higher stakes why wouldn't a lot less buy-ins work?

TacT

I'm not saying it won't but there's a very strong possibility it will not. You are relying on running good off your first few buyins which is a big gamble which will more than likely see you go busto than get to higher stakes games faster.

Anything less than 10 buyins is wreckless. It's too easy to take a few hits and be bust. As I also stated, any hits you do take will be monumental due to the size of your bankroll and will be more inclined to put you on tilt and see you go busto, whereas on the other hand, if you have more to work with -- it makes it easier to take the hit and move on unaffected, keeping your A game on track and ensuring you win rather than lose.

I don't see a problem with it if you're risking 10% of your total finances but what exactly are you proposing here, is this something you are contemplating personally? How much of your finances are you intending to put on the line if that is the case?

RoundTower

This is more or less what I do any time I start playing on a new site, it works fine though you do lose it all reasonably often.

cardshark202

RoundTower wrote:

This is more or less what I do any time I start playing on a new site, it works fine though you do lose it all reasonably often.

And you go busto on every site eventually.

Imposter

TacT wrote:

I'm not saying it won't but there's a very strong possibility it will not. You are relying on running good off your first few buyins which is a big gamble which will more than likely see you go busto than get to higher stakes games faster.

Anything less than 10 buyins is wreckless. It's too easy to take a few hits and be bust. As I also stated, any hits you do take will be monumental due to the size of your bankroll and will be more inclined to put you on tilt and see you go busto, whereas on the other hand, if you have more to work with -- it makes it easier to take the hit and move on unaffected, keeping your A game on track and ensuring you win rather than lose.

The main part of this strategy is the moving up/down as you need to. This often means closing a game where you are not losing in order to 'play within your bankroll'. In theory going busto would be quite difficult.

I don't see a problem with it if you're risking 10% of your total finances but what exactly are you proposing here, is this something you are contemplating personally? How much of your finances are you intending to put on the line if that is the case?

I took 100$ and played around a bit with this. I started with 3 25$ tables and got it to 3 50$ tables before it took a downswing. I was back at 3 25$ tables when I gave up on it.

I've always been thinking about bankroll management and how it might be possible to improve on the given norms. I play a very conservative bankroll strategy and have done since i left the 10$ SnG's. I got to thinking about how I would approach a challenge like what Flipper suggested and I thought this idea might work. If followed strictly theorethically you should never go broke (although you could end up playing tiny limits), which after all is the idea of a bankroll.

Another thing is that most people who use a proper (read recommended - 20+ buy-ins for a level) bankroll strategy rarely use the last part of their money. If you have a 4k bankroll for 200NL they will drop to 100NL when the bankroll is below 2k and then down to 50NL when it's below 1k. In all cases we are really only playing with half of our required bankrolls and the bottom half never gets touched until we need to drop levels. In reality it is rarely used. Should it be invested? should it not be wasted and used to play higher levels? etc.... Leaving what is sometimes a relatively significant sum of money sitting idle is hardly good financial management and in a way the reason we have a bankroll strategy is to have a good handle on our poker finances.

Roundtower I would consider all my online monies to be part of my bankroll, so I think if I lost the initial deposit i'd reload rather than move down levels while i still have more that enough money in neteller or wherever to play a level. This strategy would be different.

RoundTower

cardshark202 wrote:

And you go busto on every site eventually.

I don't think you understand the bit about eventually not moving up any more.

TacT

I've been at the bottom end of my roll and rebuilt twice with it over the past 2 years. On one other occasion, I went completely busto on the roll and went back to my pocket after a few months break and rebuilt. Therefore, I now see it as a must to have it sitting there for those rare occasions when you have a very bad run and need to rebuild without having to go to your money outside of the roll. Horses for courses I guess but consider this wild scenario if you will, you spend a long time building up at a lower level then decide to take a shot at a higher level.

You get your AA all-in preflop with punter1 and he catches a set of Q's, then next time punter2 hits a set of K's and next time punter3 holding AKs hits a flush or a straight. Ok, the examples are extreme but you get the idea. I've been there and wore the t-shirt taking these shots and getting my AA cracked all-in preflop against a guy with AKs who hits a nut flush, then I hit top set and some guy calls off his entire stack on an open ender and hits. I'm left back where I started minus the hours and bigger buyins, it hurts to destroy something you spent a certain amount of time building in so little time.

After a sick run at the higher stakes games you will be forced to drop back down to the level you can afford to play and will appreciate why you have a proper roll for those stakes.

I think it's important to be able to respect the fact that it takes a long time to build a roll and you can lose it all in seconds if you want to, whether you're doing it as a hobby, a second income or treating it as a full-time job.