Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
17-05-2007, 14:40   #1
pok3rplaya
Registered User
 
pok3rplaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,996
Bankroll Management or "How many buyins do I need for xxxx?"

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.

Last edited by pok3rplaya; 17-05-2007 at 15:03.
pok3rplaya is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
17-05-2007, 14:45   #2
HiCloy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,077
Nice post.

Do you think if you multitable you need a higher bankroll?

Say 4 1/2 online tables compared to 1. I don't but have heard it argued many times.
HiCloy is offline  
17-05-2007, 14:48   #3
Mellor
Registered User
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,639
I'd say you need a higher BR to multi table, as you will have a higher % of your BR in play at any single time
Mellor is online now  
17-05-2007, 14:51   #4
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,529
WP pok3rplaya and long overdue.

Link to be added to the useful posts thread please mods.
ollyk1 is offline  
17-05-2007, 14:52   #5
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellor
I'd say you need a higher BR to multi table, as you will have a higher % of your BR in play at any single time
this is generally only the case if your prone to tilting badly..
[nicK] is offline  
Advertisement
17-05-2007, 14:53   #6
HiCloy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellor
I'd say you need a higher BR to multi table, as you will have a higher % of your BR in play at any single time
Yeah but your results on one table aren't correlated to those on others, unless you tilt really badly. So playing 4 tables for one hour should be the same variance wise as playing 1 table for 4 hours IMO
HiCloy is offline  
17-05-2007, 14:53   #7
pok3rplaya
Registered User
 
pok3rplaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiCloy
Nice post.

Do you think if you multitable you need a higher bankroll?

Say 4 1/2 online tables compared to 1. I don't but have heard it argued many times.
Thanks.

I don't think it matters all that much really. Obviously you cant play 8 tables with a 10 buyin bankroll simply because if you get stacked twice you wont be able to rebuy. I've seen a bunch of maths done somewhere which worked out that you should have a larger roll for multitabling but it was only by a very small ammount. Just because you have a larger ammount of your bankroll in play at once doesn't mean that your chances of losing the whole lot at once go up.
pok3rplaya is offline  
17-05-2007, 14:56   #8
sikes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,539
Nice post.

People should also consider the games they are playing. If they are playing full ring the buy in reuqirement is less than for 6 max, which in turn is less for HU.
sikes is offline  
17-05-2007, 14:59   #9
pok3rplaya
Registered User
 
pok3rplaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by sikes
Nice post.

People should also consider the games they are playing. If they are playing full ring the buy in reuqirement is less than for 6 max, which in turn is less for HU.
Yes good point I forgot to include that. It is kinda covered by the aggression thing though but I soulda made a point out of it. I'll edit.
pok3rplaya is offline  
Advertisement
17-05-2007, 15:10   #10
Mellor
Registered User
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by pok3rplaya
Thanks.

I don't think it matters all that much really. Obviously you cant play 8 tables with a 10 buyin bankroll simply because if you get stacked twice you wont be able to rebuy. I've seen a bunch of maths done somewhere which worked out that you should have a larger roll for multitabling but it was only by a very small ammount. Just because you have a larger ammount of your bankroll in play at once doesn't mean that your chances of losing the whole lot at once go up.
I wasn't suggesting that if you play 2 or 4 tables you need twice or four times the BR, but in situations were you have just enough to play 2/4.(say 25 buy-ins) And mutli-tabling 4 tables leaves you with 16, If you got stacked on two of these, if you rebuy, you are jumping in with only 23 buy-ins.
The ammount you should increase it by if multi tabling is probably very small, and should increase depending on number of tables.
I'd imagine that the number of tables would be enough.
if you multi-table 4 tables, then increase the limit of 25 to 29. (if games are not very agressive at a paticular level, it could be reduce to half the no of multi tables, so 4 tables at a passive level, increase 25 to 27)
Mellor is online now  
17-05-2007, 15:13   #11
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,783
nice post now go study or else you'll be trapped here forever
bops is offline  
17-05-2007, 15:14   #12
pok3rplaya
Registered User
 
pok3rplaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellor
I wasn't suggesting that if you play 2 or 4 tables you need twice or four times the BR, but in situations were you have just enough to play 2/4.(say 25 buy-ins) And mutli-tabling 4 tables leaves you with 16, If you got stacked on two of these, if you rebuy, you are jumping in with only 23 buy-ins.
The ammount you should increase it by if multi tabling is probably very small, and should increase depending on number of tables.
I'd imagine that the number of tables would be enough.
if you multi-table 4 tables, then increase the limit of 25 to 29. (if games are not very agressive at a paticular level, it could be reduce to half the no of multi tables, so 4 tables at a passive level, increase 25 to 27)
But if you play at 1 table instead of 4 with your 25 buyins, you'll still end off down at 23 buyins except it'll take you 4 hours instead of 1 hour or whatever.
pok3rplaya is offline  
17-05-2007, 15:17   #13
Duff Man Jr.
Registered User
 
Duff Man Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 736
What do people think for sng's, 25 buy ins should be plenty imo. But on 2+2 some people say 100 buy ins. One guy who had 900 10+1's played and a 3k bankroll was wondering if he should move up.
Duff Man Jr. is offline  
17-05-2007, 15:19   #14
phantom_lord
Registered User
 
phantom_lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,668
I don't think you should adjust for multi-tabling, the varience is the same as playing one table, you're just getting through the hands quicker.

anyway, if there is a difference for multi-tabling, whoever came up with the 20-30 buy-in rule most likely took it into account, since pretty everyone multi-tables.
phantom_lord is offline  
17-05-2007, 15:23   #15
pok3rplaya
Registered User
 
pok3rplaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff Man Jr.
What do people think for sng's, 25 buy ins should be plenty imo. But on 2+2 some people say 100 buy ins. One guy who had 900 10+1's played and a 3k bankroll was wondering if he should move up.
I've very little experience with SnGs tbh though 100 does sound about right to me and I'm sure the 2+2 guys have a good idea what they're on about.

Perhaps someone who is the shizzle at SnGs could make another post in this thread and maybe someone about Omaha too.
pok3rplaya is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet