Bankroll management-breaking the rules

Earlier today I was pondering poker and the possibilities that my future holds. With this pondering I began to calculate on average how long it would take to get from one stake level to another, based on general statistics of my own. Then I began to analyze the concept of bankroll management and came to a thought.. A thought I am sure many poker players have had, maybe even players that abide by this certain philosophy, but I sure hadn't heard anything about it before. So I will share the thought and then ask away for readers to answer so I can get their insight and see if this is not a good approach, or if it is.

By Chris Ferguson's law of bankroll management a poker player should
1. Never buy into a cash game or SnG with more than 5% of your bankroll, and
2. Never buy into a MTT with more than 2% of your bankroll.

The thought: So I understand to play comfortably at the stakes that you are playing at the typical at least 20 buy-in rule is necessary due to a little thing called "variance." I am not arguing this at all as that is a fact, not a thought. But, lets say I have an $100 bankroll and have been playing $.02/.05 to get all the way up to this level what's wrong with taking a stab at $.05/.10? You have 10 buy-ins here, and the rule is that if you lose a buy-in then you go back down to $.02/05 to rebuild, until you can do it again. Maybe you will succeed at these stakes and begin to build up, or you will not succeed and rebuild from your 2 buy-in blow (considering $10 is 1 buy-in at $.05/.10 but 2 buy-ins at $.02/.05. And so on and so forth as you move up stakes. If not this then how about 12-15 buy-ins?

Is there anything wrong with this philosophy?

The only thing i feel is, this is what starts a rapid downfall more often than not. I think im using very aggressive bankroll playing 20-25 BI at $2 SNG!

Yes, this is something that requires a little self-control. Also, this does not apply to sng's as I believe sng's should be somewhere around 30 buy-ins and over. But, in your case I do not greatly disagree with playing these $2 sng's as rake is too high in the $1 sng's.

Why not just wait until you're properly rolled for the next level? Let me ask you, what is your motivation to move up in limits? To make more money? To say that you play higher? To watch your winrate go down? I personally play with 30 buy-ins at the level I want to be playing because it gives you more of a cushion. When I get up to ~25 buy-ins at the next level, I will start to look at the tables and see if there are any juicy games going on up there. As long as I am over 25 BI's and I see a game that looks really good, then I will play one table of it. Keep in mind that this is not an excuse to just open any table at the next level and play away, but specifically looking for a good table(Look up table selection if you don't know how to do this).

If you're looking to do this with only 20 buy-ins, you aren't giving yourself enough of a cushion should you fail.

Yes, I agree with you, as that is how I usually have played. Having a cushion like 30 buy-ins is great because you can handle variance and in the end you will come out on top, winning money.

But, this method of bankroll management here is giving that higher stake a stab and possibly succeeding, boosting your bankroll faster than you ever have before. OR you can utterly fail. Suffer this terrible, disheartening defeat of one buy-in.

It is simply a new idea that I will attempt. And will actually begin to monitor my progress in this thread if anyone is at all interested.

Personally, I can't really see the point in moving up like this. Of course I feel like when people do this they are looking for some type of luck double up then to actually play good poker. When people play outside their roll, I think they play a lot more timid and really just diminish their chances of playing good and winning. I don't have a problem with it though as long as the person believes they can play their best games under the circumstances.

I in no way will ever play timid in a game where I know I have 10 buy-ins and if I lose 1 then I will be done until I get back up to that point. I also am not looking for any "luck" double up here, I am trying to play the best poker I can and if I by some "unluckiness" lose my buy-in then let it be so.

Are you going to be playing 5nl with one table of 10nl opened?If so what happens when/if you have a bad session?Is your plan to always leave 18bi's at the level you are/where plaing at?I mean I belive there is nothing wrong with taking a shot,and if I did it's your money do as you wish.Good luck an I look foward to your updates.

Just 1 table of rush 10NL for now.

If I have a bad session/ lose 1 buy-in I go back down to the previous level.

Yes, I leave 18 buy-ins for my previous level.

And thank you, my update for now is from $101 now up to $113.72, but I will be doing the updates at the end of every playing day. If I put money into sng's/tourneys I will subtract it from my bankroll as this is only for cash games.

I think I was just trying to justify why so many people follow BRM really strict. Personally, I bet Chris took shots every chance he got because he is very comfortable with the way he plays and obviously should be since he is a pro.

Best of luck with your strategy. I think it'll be just fine for you.

BRM is dependent on who you are. Some people are comfortable with 10, some are with 50. Its not a specific thing, just play at the level that you are comfortable with. If you can do that with 10 BI and dont worry enough if you go busto. Then fine. There is no standard way to do anything, just enjoy the game.

I think what you are doing is perfectly fine, so long as you do have the self-control and discipline to limit the loss to one buyin. One thing I might do before actually putting money down at the next level is to spend a good hour or two silently rail-observing some play at the tables -- just to get a feel for it and to see if you think you can play comfortably there.

Particularly at the 6-max micros between 2nl and 25nl, with good table selection and hunting you can sometimes encounter a 25nl table that plays softer than a tough 2nl table. It is at these tables I think it can be highly beneficial to your bankroll to take a CONTROLLED shot/gamble to give your roll a boost. If the shot/gamble doesn't pan out, then you MUST drop back down and work your roll back up to the point you can take another shot. Since this is what you plan to do and are confident in adhering to, then I say go for it.

Yes.

Get rid of "moving up" as a goal...

Assuming that we have found a stakes level that we can beat (for a decent win rate) why would we want STOP playing at that level (and winning) and go play some other level?

Is it because, IF we could maintain our current win rate at higher stakes then we would make more money?

That's a big "if". We won't really know until we've played 15-20k hands... We should be properly bank rolled while we play them.

I've heard the ebst strategy is to be comfortable with 1BI

i have constantly took shots at higher levels, i have never went broke so far. however 3 times i had to go back to 2nl from 25, i am back to 25nl now.

would have probably been easier to just grind more buyins for the level.

Let's get few things straight. In order for bankroll management to work, you have to be a winning player player. No set of bankroll management will ever help anyone become a winning player. They'll just bust slower.

The number of buy-ins you choose should be based on how well you're comfortable with it. It also depends on what kind of player you are. Even if you're a winning player but your style of play is very loose and aggressive, or if you're playing games with high variance, such as mtt, superturbo sngs, shallow ring tables, you're gonna face lot of variance, thus, requiring more buy-ins threshold.

If you believe you'll be comfortable with 10 buy-ins and be willing to move down to 10 buy-ins of lower stake, then feel free to do so. I personally never had any good result with 20 buy-in brm due to my style of play. But many others have been able to do it.

I agree with you on that BRM will never make you a winning player if you aren't one already. The question I have for you is regarding your last sentence. You said that 20BI's didn't have good results for you due to your style of play. If you are saying that working with 10 BI's works better for you than 20BI's, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Your game will always benefit from having more buy-ins, it will never hurt you. Whereas the opposite is true for having less buy-ins.
How would having 20BI's at a level make things worse for you than having 10BI's based on your style of play?

Oh. Just to clear my last statement, I was trying to say that if he believes he can manage with 10 buy-ins because he's been doing well with 20 buy-in brm, then he may give it a try. For me, I sucked with 20 buy-in brm. About 2 years ago, after recovering my losses, I had $50 left and decided to play 2NL and $2 sngs since i have 25 buy-ins for it and busted. Although I had other reasons also, such as lack of tilt control, not playing optimally due to tilt, etc, I just can't play using 20 buy-in brm. That's just me. Everyone's different. There are many others who can have 20 buy-ins, or even less and still be a winning player. For me, I bust when I use 20 buy-in brm. I currently took leatherass9's advice by applying 100 buy-in brm and so far, I'm having great results. Everyone has their different threshold and their comfort zone. Many people can apply 20 buy-in brm without any problems, even 10 buy-ins. But for me, it's way out of my comfort zone and I can't handle it.