How do these players manage to go through the ranks with such bad BR management?

[bigjoker66]

If your 18-20 and living in your parents house, who needs to do BRM? Play whatever you have online at whatever stakes. Doesn't matter if you loose just get some more money in a few days/weeks and deposit again. Its not like they are living off their online winnings.

I think too much emphases is placed on BRM by people who don't need to, and conversely people who should be doing BRM don't.

This got to be one of the stupidest advice ever IMO.
But I guess its a level.

lol .. the first paragraph wasn't advice, it was my opinion on how they do it.

In the second, I'm saying people people who should be doing BRM are not paying attention to it. How is that bad advice?

 

[bigjoker66]

Haha, the monoxide BBJ BRM strategy. Hope I luckbox one of them someday

I have people I work with who's retirement strategy is winning the lottery. They buy $10-$20 worth every week.

Just think how much money they would have if they banked $10/week for 20 years!

 

[Crummy]

I'm all about bankroll management but then again there comes a time and place for everything. These guy's perception at the time was probably along the lines of "I have $50 to play with I'm not going to start grinding .01/.02, this is boring ect ect...." So why not play what you can buy max into, or short into and have a chance to double it up in one shot. Poker is like any business and with risk comes reward. Sometimes you have to put both feet in the water and hope you float instead of sink.

 

[LuckyChippy]

I think you're getting confused. They obv didn't just move up with one buy-in every time they doubled up. You say jungleman had $50 and played 50nl, he probs won a few buy-ins at 50nl, then moved up with a bigger roll than $100 to 100nl.

They probably used aggressive BRM, say 10 buy-ins and moving up, and they definitely had to run hot but they're obviously really good too.

 

[only_bridge]

lol .. the first paragraph wasn't advice, it was my opinion on how they do it.

In the second, I'm saying people people who should be doing BRM are not paying attention to it. How is that bad advice?

I guess you have some personal experience of something like this, but I think it can be very dangerous advice.

I just picture myself an 18-year-old who starts taking risks with money he dont have, and ends up broke and in dept.

 

[bigjoker66]

I guess you have some personal experience of something like this, but I think it can be very dangerous advice.

I just picture myself an 18-year-old who starts taking risks with money he dont have, and ends up broke and in dept.

Sorry for not being clear. OP asked how they do it and I answered with a way it could be done. I do not advocate that way of BRM, nor do I have direct experience with it.

 

[RamdeeBen]

I think you're getting confused. They obv didn't just move up with one buy-in every time they doubled up. You say jungleman had $50 and played 50nl, he probs won a few buy-ins at 50nl, then moved up with a bigger roll than $100 to 100nl.

They probably used aggressive BRM, say 10 buy-ins and moving up, and they definitely had to run hot but they're obviously really good too.

That's what I meant. Did they just take a shot to start with and double up a numerous times and just keep playing the same limits so they had proper BRM in place and then go from there gradually moving up the limits as they built a roll.

 

[ben_rhyno]

Obv the best players put all of their roll on 1 table, double up and move up with the min buy in for the next level and repeat until pro

 

[Arjonius]

What appears to be poor BRM may not be depending on one's definition of bankroll. As a simple example, if I only play on one site and have $11 there, is it okay to play an $11 tournament? At first glance, no way. But let's modify the situation so that in my pocket, I have $500 I've set aside for poker.

If I define BR as the amount I have on the site, playing the entire $11 at once is clearly poor BRM. However, if I define BR as all the money I have allocated for poker, no matter where it happens to be, then NP since I have ample buyins to play $an 11.

 

[RamdeeBen]

What appears to be poor BRM may not be depending on one's definition of bankroll. As a simple example, if I only play on one site and have $11 there, is it okay to play an $11 tournament? At first glance, no way. But let's modify the situation so that in my pocket, I have $500 I've set aside for poker.

If I define BR as the amount I have on the site, playing the entire $11 at once is clearly poor BRM. However, if I define BR as all the money I have allocated for poker, no matter where it happens to be, then NP since I have ample buyins to play $an 11.

Well that is true to a degree however, I can't see how anyone can call it bankroll management when there is no management in it at all by having 1 buy-in.

As for saying having a set amount aside for poker than having in your one poker account is different. I mean, I could have $1000 in an ewallet and only $10.00 in various poker accounts and I wouldn't call it bad bankroll management if I played a $10.00 tournament because my bankroll for poker would be $1k.

Like I said in my OP they stated and you can actually see it yourself and we will use Jungleman as an example he only had $50.00 to play poker with on one site at the time and decided to play heads up poker 50nl..

 

[Marginal]

You dont have to be a bank roll nit to be an expert at poker. Bad BRM does not mean bad player

 

[rssurfer54]

for every guy that makes it with no BRM there are maybe 3000 people going broke with same strategy (if not more, who know really), some of them might actually have better poker skills then the ones who made it all the way up, but had worse luck when they needed it.

This.

 

[RamdeeBen]

You dont have to be a bank roll nit to be an expert at poker. Bad BRM does not mean bad player

I don't think anyone read the post correctly

I never said I thought they was bad players or anything, if anything I think they are outstanding for achieving what they have. I was wondering how they managed to achieve it what they did with such bad BR management.

As in, no matter how good a player is everyone suffers variance and bad luck. I wondered was it a case of running sooo hot that they didn't bust? And if you had 1 million equal players in terms of skill try the same thing if only the very few like the examples above manage to run so good they ran their money into fortunes.

 

[RamdeeBen]

This.

Yeah that was my thought, something along those lines expect the 3000 being a very small number. I'd compare it to 100,000+ maybe even millions.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Bad BRM does not mean bad player

You can be the absolute best poker player in the entire world, but if you've only got a single buyin, then you might be done after a single game. Even the best player in the world isn't going to be ITM every single game.

BTW, what happened to your avatar? It really drew me in with its innocent look even though I knew on some level that I should stay far, far away.