Bankroll Management or "How many buyins do I need for xxxx?"

pocketdooz

pok3rplaya wrote: »

Right, seems like every week there is some new post about bankroll management and questions like "how many buyins do I need for xxxx?" and the like. I checked the stickies and there doesn't seem to be anything comprehensive up there so I decided I'd write something now because I don't want to study.

An important thing to realise is that there are no set rules you can follow when deciding on bankroll management. Hopefully here I can point out some of the things that should be taken into consideration though.

The first thing you need to consider when trying to decide how big your bankroll needs to be in order to be sufficiently bankrolled to play a certain game is your skill level. The ammount of variance which a certain player will encounter when playing poker at a certain level is largely a function of his skill level relative to the other players in the game. Put simply that means that if you crush a certain game then you should, in the long run, be able to play with less variance than if you were playing in a game in which you are a breakeven player or marginal winner. Thus you can get a way with having a smaller bankroll.

Another factor to consider is the general level of aggression in the game. A very aggressive game will induce a lot of variance for its players because they are being forced to make marginal decisions for large ammounts of money (read: large percentages of their stack) very often because their opponents are putting pressure on them every chance they get. Eventually you need to take a stand against this aggression in spots where you are not 100% sure that you are winning. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong, the fact is that these types of decisions all contribute to increasing variance and mean that you should try and have a bigger bankroll before tackling these types of games.

This point also applied to short handed games like 6max and heads-up. The less players in the game the less likely it is that anyone has a premium hand. Therefore being very aggressive can often be a good strategy for winning in these games. Keep in mind though that this will push up your variance and the bankroll needed to play at a certain stake will increase the shorter the game gets.

Also a note on the aggression paragraph. I feel that it can be difficult for low stakes player to get a good idea of what a truely aggressive game is. I often hear people saying that you will have higher variance if you play against really bad players, suce as those found in the SE or the Fitz. This is a complete fallacy. Bad players are easy to play against, you make a good hand, you bet, they call and you take their money. Yes they will suck out more often then good players, that is true. But that is only because they get their money in behind more often then good players and the suckouts make it appear like a high variance game.

So the best advice I can give when trying to decide if you are bankrolled for a game is to consider the above factors. As a general guideline, if you are playing in a low aggression live game that you beat for a high rate then you can get away with a smaller bankroll like 15-20 buyins. If you are not so sure of your abilities then try and wait until you have a larger roll before stepping into the game, more like 20-25 buyins. In an agressive high stakes online game then these numbers need to be increased to account for the different game conditions. Personally I won't play 5/10 NLHE online without at least 50 buyins in my bankroll and I'd even consider that marginal enough. Why? Because it's a highly aggressive game in which I am not certain that I'm a winner.

Summary:

relative skill level up, bankroll needed down.
aggression up, bankroll needed up.

easy games: 15-25 buyins.
meadium games: 25-35 buyins.
hard games: >50 buyins.

. . . . but when you say 25 buyins (35 buyins etc) - say for example if you were playing 25c/50c online cash games. What is recommended as your buyin ....

would it be BB x (a certain figure), e.g. 50 making each buyin $25

so your bankroll would need to be $25 by 25 = $625 ??

Thanks

pierce hard

a buyin = 100bb.

pocketdooz

pierce hard wrote: »

a buyin = 100bb.

Thanks

So to play 0.25 / 0.50 c you'd be looking at a $1250 bankroll ?

mormank

ok i take your point about havin x sized bankroll but what if you currently dont have the 4k required to play 1/2 or the 2k to play 50/1 but cannot take any game lower than that seriously?? i tried this before to play smaller stakes to stay inside bankroll and was gettin somewhere but then @kablam*# just lost loads of stupid hands in a row and couldnt take it seriously after that.

basically can only take 1/2 or above seriously.

also a question that has been on my mind alot recently. what is the most buy ins that you have lost in a row before??? I am currently in the middle of losing 17 buy ins in a row at 2/4 omaha and just wanted some perspective plz?? (dont discount as moaning) the reason i know the exact amount is cos i normally play 50/1 omaha and was spinning these 17 times...

DeadParrot

mormank wrote: »

the Reason I Know The Exact Amount Is Cos I Normally Play 50/1 Omaha And Was Spinning These 17 Times...

Lol

mormank

DeadParrot wrote: »

Lol

ya tell me about it..and i see the irony..

thedini

pocketdooz. yes

DeadParrot

mormank wrote: »

ya tell me about it..and i see the irony..

You're talking to your brother
far too many late night spin ups left me busto with barely a .25/.50 roll

pocketdooz

thedini wrote: »

pocketdooz. yes

Nice one - will have to move down so and / or add more outside money to the BR

mormank

DeadParrot wrote: »

You're talking to your brother
far too many late night spin ups left me busto with barely a .25/.50 roll

i hear ya...i guess my problem is that i cant take 25c 50c even semi seriously after so many failed spin ups!! how do i get over this??

cooker3

mormank wrote: »

i hear ya...i guess my problem is that i cant take 25c 50c even semi seriously after so many failed spin ups!! how do i get over this??

start taking it seriously

mormank

cooker3 wrote: »

start taking it seriously

alot easier said than done...

phantom_lord

mormank wrote: »

spin ups

lol

Hectorjelly

RedJoker wrote: »

Another couple of points: If you plan on moving down when you get below a certain number of buy-ins then you should never go bust. Being able to move down fast enough to protect your br takes discipline.

Yeah, one of the things I have learned is that its very important to move down dynamically when things arent going well

CHD

play CAP omaha

mormank

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol

that is what these sort of sessions have become known as, not my words..

i dont see it that way cos i am a better player than those i am playing against in these omaha games on eyes..just continuosly gettin unlucky

Grafter

An old thread bumped without apology, coz it's pure Gold and yet my comp says I'm the first person to Thank the OP

BobSloane

Back in '07 we were all wearing onions on our belts and the thanks button hadn't been invented yet

pok3rplaya

Ha thanks! Weird to see this old thing again.

Would like to amend this by saying that I think you are out of your mind if you're playing 2/4 online professionally these days without 6 months living expenses saved up and a 100 buyin roll.

Also I left out a paragraph in the OP about the difference between playing prefessionally, semi-seriously and having a laugh. RJ touched on it with his risk of ruin coment.

Also moving down fast when downswinging is the absolute nuts. A few subtle B game plays a day is the difference between being a winner and loser in todays games and once you lose some confidence your mind plays crazy tricks on you which make you think you're playing fine when you are actually a loser in your current state. Move down, no arguments.

ianmc38

Whats a bankroll?