Bankroll Management based on Player Pool

BenjiHustle · Jul 6, 2014

Being an American player who plays online, I find myself in a lot of reg-heavy situations, sometimes unable to find a table that is not filled by regs. I was wondering if a situation like this means that we should have more stringent guidelines as far as BRM is concerned. Also, players at higher traffic sites may get to a stake/level that is very reg-heavy (like 16deep on PS). Should these individuals be overrolled as well?

Or is it a situation in which you know the regs so well that you can actually be underrolled because you know all the right moves at the right times (mostly, of course)? Since the loose fish carry with them a higher variance, should we actually carry a larger roll into more random-heavy stakes/tables?

BenjiHustle · Jul 6, 2014

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but the question is regarding bankroll management. This has nothing to do with billiards, as it seems like you're saying.

tbdbitl · Jul 6, 2014

IMO BRM is a strict relationship between your roll and the stakes you are playing. Variance is Variance. I would never consider gauging what games to play by anything. Only way I would consider not playing a game is if I feel I am out matched.

BenjiHustle · Jul 6, 2014

Understood, but you would only know you're outmatched if you know the players (regs). So, since you know the players if they're all regs, do you need as heavy a bankroll? That's the question.

Mr Sandbag · Jul 6, 2014

It's not so much about having more BI when playing a certain level because our edge is smaller and thus variance is higher. There is nothing wrong with playing any given level as long as we are disciplined enough to move down at the right time. I don't see anything wrong with shotting the next highest level with only 12-15 BI.

Example: We are playing and confidently beating 2NL, and our roll is currently at $65. It's okay to shot 5NL even though we only have 13 BI because we are willing to drop back down to 2NL if our roll dips to $50 (25 BI).

Obviously the numbers mentioned above are just a general idea, and your BR preferences may be different. But my point is the same. Shot taking aggressively is rarely going to be a bad idea. Having only 12 or 13 BI for a level doesn't put us at risk of going completely broke because we aren't playing down to zero. If we stay disciplined, the potential to bust is extremely low compared to the chance we could grow our roll faster, move to higher levels sooner, and improve at a higher rate.

So the need for a larger roll isn't even really an issue since our BR stop loss is set wherever we want it to be. Of course if we are playing professionally at one level we want our roll to be large enough to handle huge swings, but that's not really the point of the discussion.

Wickedonesin · Jul 6, 2014

I logged in to play some 2nl on Friday and dang... it was almost all regs. Guess only the die hards play on a holiday. Needless to say, I had a losing morning and decided to sit out the rest of the morning. Thus my opinion is that if you are facing a table full of regs, you might want to be Over rolled.

BenjiHustle · Jul 6, 2014

Thank you, that's what I was figuring. I just thought, at a certain point, you should know regs well enough to be able to play them underrolled.

suby_rafael · Jul 7, 2014

Just make sure you have enough bankroll so that you don't play conservatively or scared poker afraid of getting outplayed by regs. If you don't think you have a comfortable enough bankroll then go conservative bankroll wise (add more), instead of taking an aggressive approach.

So having a larger roll into the higher stakes that you want to play would be a good idea.:eating:

tomnovember · Jul 7, 2014

I usually keep no less than 50 BI of any levels. That will let you keep calm and do not afraid of any variances that may happen.

Thinker_145 · Jul 8, 2014

Mr Sandbag said:
It's not so much about having more BI when playing a certain level because our edge is smaller and thus variance is higher. There is nothing wrong with playing any given level as long as we are disciplined enough to move down at the right time. I don't see anything wrong with shotting the next highest level with only 12-15 BI.

Example: We are playing and confidently beating 2NL, and our roll is currently at $65. It's okay to shot 5NL even though we only have 13 BI because we are willing to drop back down to 2NL if our roll dips to $50 (25 BI).

Obviously the numbers mentioned above are just a general idea, and your BR preferences may be different. But my point is the same. Shot taking aggressively is rarely going to be a bad idea. Having only 12 or 13 BI for a level doesn't put us at risk of going completely broke because we aren't playing down to zero. If we stay disciplined, the potential to bust is extremely low compared to the chance we could grow our roll faster, move to higher levels sooner, and improve at a higher rate.

So the need for a larger roll isn't even really an issue since our BR stop loss is set wherever we want it to be. Of course if we are playing professionally at one level we want our roll to be large enough to handle huge swings, but that's not really the point of the discussion.

I completely agree with this.

Another thing I would add is that if for example you are crushing 10 NL playing 2 tables you can move up 1 table to 20 NL and keep playing 10 NL on the other table. This will really keep you away from any potential disaster and once you have gotten the hang of the next level you can move on to it completely.

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

BenjiHustle · Jul 8, 2014

Thinker_145 said:
I completely agree with this.

Another thing I would add is that if for example you are crushing 10 NL playing 2 tables you can move up 1 table to 20 NL and keep playing 10 NL on the other table. This will really keep you away from any potential disaster and once you have gotten the hang of the next level you can move on to it completely.

That's a good idea and I may implement that. Thank you.

Mr Sandbag is pretty good with the wording; I definitely agree also. Both of your posts were quite helpful, thanks.

tbdbitl · Jul 8, 2014

Sandbag makes a good point. But, you have to set a definitive drop back point. DON'T be stubborn. Too many get set in the thought that I can beat these guys and before they know it they have destroyed their BR. Dropping back is HARD! But, to maintain good BRM it is a must.

ILIKEFISH31 · Jul 9, 2014

BenjiHustle said:
Being an American player who plays online, I find myself in a lot of reg-heavy situations, sometimes unable to find a table that is not filled by regs.

Dude, it's reg wars all day and night here @ 5nl on WPN. I figure at least when the market finally opens up again one day and all the fish swim back into the pond, we'll be really good by then and have a little bit of a cash cow at our fingertips. As it is now, we just have to keep grinding and studying and putting in the volume.

BenjiHustle · Jul 9, 2014

ILIKEFISH31 said:
Dude, it's reg wars all day and night here @ 5nl on WPN. I figure at least when the market finally opens up again one day and all the fish swim back into the pond, we'll be really good by then and have a little bit of a cash cow at our fingertips. As it is now, we just have to keep grinding and studying and putting in the volume.

I actually agree with this 100%. I've just never outright said it and I'm not entirely sure if it's true. I do see some pretty liberal action taking place on PS and FTP and 888 even, really. So if we had PS to play on, do you think your bankroll management standards would be more liberal or more stringent; or maybe even just the same?

ILIKEFISH31 · Jul 9, 2014

BenjiHustle said:
I actually agree with this 100%. I've just never outright said it and I'm not entirely sure if it's true. I do see some pretty liberal action taking place on PS and FTP and 888 even, really. So if we had PS to play on, do you think your bankroll management standards would be more liberal or more stringent; or maybe even just the same?

I'd have to take a wait and see approach, you know? I would keep my bankroll standards the same and then see how things go. If after a decent sample size my winrate was considerably higher once things "open up" to everyone again (so to speak) well then I would naturally rerun the math and see if 30, 40, or 50+ buy ins was really necessary.

I'm sure if the industry changed that much, so would the bankroll recommendations that pros were giving up and comers. I'm sure of one thing, though: It would still never hurt to have too much $...only too little

duggs · Jul 10, 2014

Lower edge=higher variance so yea makes sense, same reason people have more of acushion higher up

duggs · Jul 16, 2014

Also thinking fields are tougher on us facing sites seems a bit naive/optimistic

curtinsea · Jul 16, 2014

Risk of ruin is the most important aspect of bankroll management. Don't look at bankroll management strictly as a fixed ratio between # of buy-ins and stakes. Look at the swings you are experiencing at the stake you are playing, and let that be your guide. If you are not seeing swings of more than a few buy-ins, then it isn't necessary to have 30 buy-ins to play that stake.

Also, don't play stakes dependent upon your bankroll. Play stakes you are comfortably beating, and adjust your bankroll needs to those stakes. If you are playing lower stakes than you should be simply because you are under rolled, then you are losing value, and your hourly is suffering. Add some bankroll and play where you should be playing.

BenjiHustle · Jul 16, 2014

curtinsea said:
Add some bankroll and play where you should be playing.

Some people have this luxury. I, however, am not one of those people. Great points though, Curt, thank you.

Effin' Knish.

Bankroll Management based on Player Pool

BenjiHustle

Legend

BenjiHustle

Legend

tbdbitl

Legend

BenjiHustle

Legend

Mr Sandbag

Legend

Wickedonesin

Rock Star

BenjiHustle

Legend

suby_rafael

Legend

tomnovember

Visionary

Thinker_145

Visionary

BenjiHustle

Legend

tbdbitl

Legend

ILIKEFISH31

Rock Star

BenjiHustle

Legend

ILIKEFISH31

Rock Star

duggs

Killing me softly

duggs

Killing me softly

curtinsea

Rock Star

BenjiHustle

Legend

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site