What size bankroll to try $10nl $0.05/0.10

I just wondered if people had different ideas on this, i'm sure loads of people have asked this before so i do apologise if it's a repeat.

i play the lowest micros and wanted to know any thoughts on moving up to a higher limit.
i have reservations that the play may be better than the level i'm playing but maybe not ? do you think there are many differences in player skill level, or have people just got a bit more money to play with.
i.e. are there still loads of bad players, and if so, at what level do the bad players start reducing ?

i was thinking of being conservative and not moving up until i have 25 buyins.
which means a lot more poker, a lot more reading and a lot more learning !

or do i just throw caution to the wind, move up and nevel look back !

nar, i think i'll grind another $150 first !

whats your thoughts, experiences?

thanks,

Truffle

Well every stake you move up the better the level of play. 25 buy ins may be a bit thin. I would aim for 30+ but I play it safe.

If you want a blanket statement that will do ok:
15 max buy ins if you want to take shots, it's high risk, 20 max buy ins is a fair minimum for long term expectation, 21-100 max buy ins if you want to take it seriously.

Play enough to learn what swings you can expect, have a deep enough roll that you can afford to take those swings without playing bad. Seriously, don't think of your bankroll as enough to keep you from going broke, think of it as enough that you can take losses and still play your best.

chris freg. bankroll managment has some good info

Yeah, Chris fergusons BRM is great!
According to that you need at least $200 to buy in for $10 in a cash game session

This. The higher the buy-in, the safer you are, and most of us need to play it safe until we've proven that we really dominate at poker.

20-30 max buyins before you start mixing the game into your play, a minimum of 40 before you completely move up into a level. So, to answer your question, $400 to start playing the $10 NL tables. The less you have, the more risky of a situation you will be in. Mix in some $2 18 person SNG's. They'll give you some nice % bankroll boosts if you can cash them a lot.

Questions to everyone who's answered so far:

Why is x buy ins best?
Fewer buy ins allows faster progress, if your buddy who played poker just as well as you do made a bet with you that he'd make more money, playing the same but using 2 fewer max buy ins for his BRM, would you really want to bet against him?
Also, if you're going to play a large sample of hands, you are going to see sick downswings, wouldn't it be wise to be better rolled?


I'm ignoring a few obvious factors: psychological effects of losses (read up on prospect theory, for starters), the effect of your playing style on your standard deviation, your changing (increasing and decreasing) edge at current and future stakes. All of which demand a different optimal amount of buy ins to achieve the same risk:reward from one person to the next.


What do you want out of poker: fun, money on the side, income?
What level of risk is most appropriate for this path? Is it the same for the next guy, with different motives?

The fundamental issue is that only a very, very, very small percentage of people who come onto a site like CC asking for BRM advice are going to be the kind who move up quickly through the levels. The occasional success story of a guy who started out at NL10 and is now crushing NL200 and beyond are far outweighed by the hundreds of people who thought they were good enough and found out that they tilt too easily when their 20 buy-in roll hits a 10 buy-in downswing.

Faster progress is not always the key issue.

The reason for any BRM is purely for risk management- We all know that poker can be volatile- but if you put the swings in relation to your bankroll then the volatility could be a lot less, on a proportional basis.

Say you have 1000 buyins at the level you are playing at, a 10 buy in swing is not big deal and if your good you can play enough hands at the current level that a solid play style will win out and no matter what the downswing because you can tolerate it- variance is now on YOUR side because quality play over the hundreds of thousands of hands will give you a positive win rate.

Say you have 1 buy in, now you have no room for error, you can be a great player but still hit a downswing and now you are out of money to play poker, variance is not on your side.

So any number in between 1000 buy ins and 1 buy in is essential based upon your personal risk tolerance. So while there is no definitive answer to "what bankroll should i play?" anymore than there is an answer to "what hand should I play in which position?" The answers to both of these questions are actually subjective rather than objective.

So while we can give a general recommendation on what hands to play in that we give hand charts (hand charts are not perfect, but until you know WHY you're playing what you play stick to the chart) we can reccomend bankroll management practices that should "work".

In general if you go below 15-20 buy-ins then you should drop down, for some people its more for some people its less depending on how comfortable they are with risk. You probably want to start with somewhere between 25-30 buy-ins at the level you want to play at, again it varies.

To answer your bet question-If my friend and I play as well as each other then it should be an even money bet if he plays with a lower bankroll requirement because when he moves up in stakes he can lose more money just as easily as I will win less at the stake I play at- is this over a short number of hands, like 1 or over an infinite number? Is the bankroll difference between 1 and 3 or 98 and 100? I think that question is essentially a non issue, do you want to bet that you or someone else will win or lose more if one of you uses bad BRM, over the long run better BRM should win so that seems like a weird point to try and make.

i noticed with me when i move up in higher levels, they seem to call way more pots. Which is weird to me cuz you would think it would be the other way arou

The point is, if you use 100BI and he uses 98BI, or you use 20BI and he uses 18BI, he's going to move up faster. If whatever roll you choose is enough to withstand the variance of poker, then does 2BI less increase the chances of going bust by enough to offset the increased speed with which he can progress?

There is a reason no one uses 1,000BI, because it's going to slow your progress and you're going to spend forever at the lowest stakes. It's not just about controlling variance, it's about finding a balance between risk and reward that will maximise profits.

Using 20BI will do reasonably well for most people, the only time they go broke overnight is when they play over their heads. However it is far from optimal.

For the vast majority of players, "move up faster" means "move up to the limit where they will lose money faster." Almost all of us will hit the Peter Principle eventually.

what I like as an idea is to take a 5BI shot and move back down if it doesn't work out. If it sticks, all the better, your BR will be much improved.
What you have to avoid is to change your playing style just because you're playing for more money. The only thing moving up means at those levels is that you'll be playing fish with more money to lose.

That's just gambling. Risk of ruin very strong.

Ok, I think your missing my point.

I'm not advocating using 1000BI's, thats obviously a little bit much(used it to illustrate a point). But on the other hand lets say you are at the stake you WANT to play at. If you are playing 100/200 nl and have 1000BI's then you could tolerate all kinds of variance.

The reason that we use BRM is exactly variance control, not about speed at which we want to move up. If we had an infinite bankroll we could do whatever we wanted to at whatever stakes, but we don't so we have to manage our risk.

You can move up super fast if you use 1/2 BI, but then you will lose it all by the turn. BRM is about managing your risk, you can use it as a yardstick of when to move up, but that is not why it exists. You should be using it to control variance so you don't lose all your money at the stake that you're playing, regardless of whether its 2nl or 10000nl.

If you're not crushing the stakes you're at now. I wouldn't move be moving anywhere. As in moving up the better the game. And if you're game isn't up to par your just going to spew your chips. Not to mention if your not BR'd don't even think about it IMO. At least 100 buy ins will give you cushion for the swings and time to take it seriously and to adjust your game. You wouldn't expect to start crushing it as soon as you jumped up.

I meant to say take a 5BI shot when you have 25 BI's for the higher stake.

Example:
You have 250$ = 25BI at 10NL = ~60BI at 4NL
Take a 5BI shot, if you lose you have 200$ = 50BI at 4NL, move back down.
But even with a 150$ BR it's feasible. 100$ is still enough of a BR to play 4NL

$300 is prob enough, my bankroll managment is terrible though.

Excellent.

BRM is not a really guideline on when to move up, it's a tool to keep from losing your money (if you are for the most part a winning player!) by building in a cushion for variance. It's for those hands when your flopped set is crushed by the river, when your boat is smaller, when your AA is smashed by KT.

Having a decent cushion helps one avoid tilt when the awful beats happen, as they will. I find I am less likely to go ballistic if the beat didn't impact my BR all that much. And am therefore less likely to tilt off the rest of my BR. Having a cushion can get you through the extended downswings, as well, if you have the discipline to move down.

What is considered crushing the current stakes?

How many BB/100's are the grinders and the "crushers" making in cash games?

What is a reasonable number of hands at that level before you try to categorize how you are doing? 50,000?

The micros should be much easier to crush than any other stakes. I'd want at least 5 PTBB/100 over 25k hands at any level below NL10 before I'd even think of moving up. If you aren't getting that, you have some serious leaks and might as well patch them up where it's cheaper.

60k-100k hands with a 3 or better BB/100 in a month. Keep that up for a few months and you will be crushing you stakes ready to move up since your BR would confirm. That is NL10 if NL2 than go with the above post.

I really don't think you have to be crushing the stakes you're at before moving up. What's the difference between getting to your next level at 5bb/100 or 1bb/100?
As long as you reach the set point that you have made for your next step up, you should be fine. In fact you gain 5 times the experience doing it at 1bb/100...

Another point that I haven't seen brought up in this thread, or anywhere now I think about it is the learning factor.
When someone is playing at 10NL they are obviously still learning the fundamentals of playing poker and are bound to have even bigger swings than someone that has been playing for years. If you do not have any money to add to your bankroll in case you start going downhill I think that people playing micro stakes should really have a bigger cushion to fall back on than the regs.

+1

I have not been playing all that long, I get a lot of the theory I do pretty well in a lot of areas, but my swings are big. A big part of that is that theory does not always translate to amazing decision making, So I try to ensure I have a big cushion while I'm floundering in the micro's. Also you need to think about how bad/often you go on tilt.

I don't tilt often, but I'm awful when I do- actually probably controlling tilt may be something people need to work on before BRM, since without tilt control you will never manage your bankroll.

Hey all
I just began playing this level seriously. I started with 45 BI or 450 bucks.
I have a pretty tight set of goals and parameters around my play.
Though I am no means an authority, I thought it might be useful to hear from someone in your situation.
Good luck man.......... BRMBRMBRMBRMBRMBRMBRM

I always move up after 20 BIs but 25 is a bit nicer to have

200 dollar bankroll for 10 dollar buy ins, but it certainly wouldn't hurt having an extra 100 dollars or so, so that you can take those bad beats. Good luck on your tournaments.