Bankroll management...some players dont need it?

cotta777 · Oct 13, 2013

just a quick post not an essay, a bit of food for thought...

there are some old school storys about some pro legends basically grinding out their livings one tabling...
and theirs an old legend not brunson and not same era but hes pushing 60 now but another man (i cannot remember his name - TBC)

he basically said a pro can have a winning session 95% percent of the time sat down at a table assumingly with amateurs or break even players.

and a winning player/good player will win 7 out of ten times maybe..

also online if you can 1/2 table at 25.50 or 50.1 and you never lose a buy in.
either profiting or coming away closeto evens...

than gradually you could turn $200.00 into 1,000 at a 25.50 table.
this may take 6 weeks online..
4 weeks live,

but in general does this go against the theory of brm... I know variance can kill.

but what if you dont take those big tosses or those pots when your a favourate and you have all your bankroll at risk.

but insteadyou grind small potsand you pick off your opponents in orphaned pots and when your heads up isolated and you know your ahead and have pot control...

yes potentially you lose value... but you avoid variance and adventually you will have built yourself a bankroll big enough now open up your game and allow the swings to counteract your big pots....

I mean ive actually tried and tested with a cautious style and picking of pots and avoiding risking my whole stack when i still have a chance of losing.
and its apparent variance can be controlled?
this is exploitable live, but with so many online tables if you get found out you can just move tables

anyone agree/disagree?

IPlay · Oct 13, 2013

I agree and disagree. Lol

I disagree in the fact that anyone that takes their WHOLE bank roll to play with is obviously stupid. I agree with you on the part that you don't need to have 100 buy ins to play at a level in holdem. I think if you have 10 buy ins you will be fine and safe from being cleaned. Lets face it, if you lose 10 buy ins in a row, you should play a different game.

sillymunchie · Oct 13, 2013

what i think you are referring to is the fact that there are certain types of players at the table

the fish that will play back at you (high varience)
the fish that will call your raises instead of re raising, and then calling after the flop with hands like Q Q etc etc (perfect pot control opponents)
the type of player that will call your raises light and fold if they miss (perfect for grinding)

so if an opponent keeps playing back at us and we want to try and avoid varience as much as possible, then we get up and find another table

if opponents are just calling (calling stations) we wait for a big hand, and then we let them call us down, try to get 2 streets of value instead of 3 etc etc (in this instance we would raise the flop and turn in position, but check the river)

and if they are calling light and folding to a missed pot, then well enough said, they miss 66% of the time, so just keep raising them, but if they play back at you run away lol

i think thats where your coming from, your talking about none showdown winnings being in the + and avoiding showdown winning and losses by not getting to showdown as often

cotta777 · Oct 13, 2013

kingmunchers said:
what i think you are referring to is the fact that there are certain types of players at the table

the fish that will play back at you (high varience)
the fish that will call your raises instead of re raising, and then calling after the flop with hands like Q Q etc etc (perfect pot control opponents)
the type of player that will call your raises light and fold if they miss (perfect for grinding)

so if an opponent keeps playing back at us and we want to try and avoid varience as much as possible, then we get up and find another table

if opponents are just calling (calling stations) we wait for a big hand, and then we let them call us down, try to get 2 streets of value instead of 3 etc etc (in this instance we would raise the flop and turn in position, but check the river)

and if they are calling light and folding to a missed pot, then well enough said, they miss 66% of the time, so just keep raising them, but if they play back at you run away lol

i think thats where your coming from, your talking about none showdown winnings being in the + and avoiding showdown winning and losses by not getting to showdown as often

Yea your pretty much spot on, basically table hopping taking the easy pots on the tight tables.
and getting payed off on the aggro tabless.

I guess you could call it hit and run poker in a way...

although one of my pet hates is players trying to oversqueeze in position,
in my oppinion this is old news and getting outdated we know know what your doing, and for a sit n go reg like myself making the switch alot players will constantly pile on pressure....

I think just by calling these arrogant lags and potentially floating the flop if they barrel, your setting yourself up to take down a huge pot enough of the time when our hands miss for it to be profitable with the addition on the times we make a hand,
we know a standard squeeze in position from an aggressive winning reg is going to often be wide enough to give them a hard time post flop when their overbets stop to work, they have no response...

this is an alternitive to the 4-bet, because a percentage of the time your both all in and the variance is huge...

In general the more aggressive a player is and the bigger their stack we know their stealing extra chips alot of the time and they need to be punished.
IMO
ofcourse its not as easy as it sounds

dmorris68 · Oct 13, 2013

While you can learn to play lower variance styles of poker, it in no way replaces the need for BRM. And playing too nitty is exploitable, and will seriously diminish your profit potential. To succeed in poker, you need to make +EV decisions over the long term, wherever they come up. If you're not making the +EV play, then you're making a mistake, period.

But it's possible (and common) to run really bad over the short term even when making +EV plays. This is why we say don't be "results oriented." If the play was the correct EV play, then the results don't matter. However in the short term, a bad run can set you back a lot of buy-ins. If you haven't see a 20-30 BI downswing yet, you simply haven't played enough poker.

IPlay said:
I think if you have 10 buy ins you will be fine and safe from being cleaned. Lets face it, if you lose 10 buy ins in a row, you should play a different game.

This could not be more wrong. 10 BI's barely counts as a downswing. Even the best players can run 20+ BI downswings on multiple occasions. If you're playing only 10 BI's then you're setting yourself up for busto. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Henry Minute · Oct 13, 2013

cotta777 said:
an old legend not brunson and not same era but hes pushing 60 now but another man (i cannot remember his name - TBC)

anyone agree/disagree?

I disagree, although the guys you are talking about may not have. There are many tales about them going totally broke and having to do some really weird things to get a new stake.

Was the guy you were thinking about Sailor Roberts, or maybe Amarillo Slim?

BTW Doyle would be very flattered by your assertion that he is pushing 60. Although, in a way, he is. Just from a great height above that figure. To the best of my recollection he is 82/85 ish.

XXPXXP · Oct 13, 2013

even the best player needs bankroll management unless you are casual player for pure entertaining.if you want to play some bit serious poker...BRM is a must!

jimmylytle2 · Oct 13, 2013

Most people do not have discipline. Just like a checkbook can keep you above zero, so too can good bankroll management keep one above zero. I have no need to balance my checkbook after years of experience, however for most, it's a good idea to balance the checkbook. Until one has years of experience managing their bankroll, they should keep bankroll management in the routine.

cotta777 · Oct 13, 2013

ofcourse if your going to play poker the orthadox way variance will plough through a small bankroll...

I personal believe their are ways to build a bankroll from $150.00 / $200.00
at 50nl

if you focus on accumalating chips AND not taking tosses becuase of an edge,
you will never lose your bankroll if you have discipline.

you start by one tabling, and ofcourse you can keep moving tables until you get a good 6 max table and just stick to your game plan dont get drawn into too many dangerous and inflated pots and gradually you will be accumalating your chips consistantly.

i guess not anyone can do it, depends on their playing style and post flop game.
but in theory you steal from the weak and take from the givers - whilest ducking for cover when you see a potential bannana slip

OzExorcist · Oct 13, 2013

FWIW the games those guys were talking about happened a long, long time ago. Poker was different then. There were a lot of bad players, by all accounts. Plus NLHE was nowhere near as big of a game back then too, so they would've been playing limit games a lot of the time.

Long story short, I don't think there's much if any chance of you consistently finding NLHE games these days that are so bad that you can pretty much guarantee yourself a profit and ignore BRM.

n3rv · Oct 13, 2013

I think the best poker player in the world was Stu Ungar so in many ways I believe bankroll management is irrelevant in terms of being the best poker player. A lot of very good poker players only get motivated and determined when they are stuck because the grind simply isn't stimulating enough to them as a daily sport and they have other vices in their lives that take their money.

If you are looking at modern day examples, I know for a fact the likes of Ivey and Negreanu didn't practice bankroll management when they started out... but they have learnt to appreciate it more over the years to help them be better poker players longer-term. But in my opinion, you aren't primarily a poker player if you started out with the intention of being 100% perfect at bankroll management. If that is your initial intention then you might as well just set it to actually owning a casino or a bank and put the grind in 9 to 5 elsewhere.

The reason Ivey and Negreanu are good poker players is because they wanted to be good poker players. They are definitely still gamblers more-so than bankroll managers... they just learnt how to be better at bankroll management as they went along, like all other aspects of the game.

In conclusion, I'd agree that some players don't need it at all to prove they are good players, and some players need it less than others to have long-term success as a good player. I don't believe that any of the best players have stuck to 1% for buy-ins for their whole lives, but I'm sure they have their own limits that they stick to to remain there.

BigCountryAA · Oct 13, 2013

I think good brm is needed by everyone. It doesn't matter how good you are you will lose at some point and without proper brm it could be for your entire roll.

ammytyagi · Oct 14, 2013

Keep it simple guys. If you want to play a hand, dont think about brm but I have keep a limit on spending on weekly basis. If I have reached my limit in that week than I do not play in that week.

AcesUp747 · Oct 14, 2013

Although everyone SHOULD, the best players don't need to adhere to strict BRM.

They can get a stake at any time from multiple sources. Seems like there are always stories floating around about this pro or that pro being busto, and then a few months later they are playing all the big tournies again.

vinylspiros · Oct 14, 2013

OzExorcist said:
FWIW the games those guys were talking about happened a long, long time ago. Poker was different then. There were a lot of bad players, by all accounts. Plus NLHE was nowhere near as big of a game back then too, so they would've been playing limit games a lot of the time.

Long story short, I don't think there's much if any chance of you consistently finding NLHE games these days that are so bad that you can pretty much guarantee yourself a profit and ignore BRM.

this is true. i agree 100%. its just impossible.

dmorris68 · Oct 14, 2013

It's important to distinguish between the roll you have online or in the cage, and your "life roll." If you have the resources to re-fund your roll if you take a big hit, then you're fine. When you talk about Ivey or Negreanu or other pros not playing with BRM, I think you're wrong. They have millions available to them from external sources (bank accounts, investments, other sites/casinos, etc.) that quite likely exceed conventional BRM for the stakes they usually play. But I would agree that the better you are, the less likely you are to endure big downswings. But it's still certainly possible -- look at the pros who have ended up down millions in a given year.

A classic example of a pro who doesn't practice BRM is JRB, who is constantly broke and begging for stakes.

I'll also point out that BRM doesn't apply to losing players. While beginning players should learn BRM as a good habit, BRM doesn't serve much purpose while you're losing because you're forced to continually redeposit if you want to keep playing. By the same token, recreational "gamblers" who never intend to study and improve their game have nothing to gain from BRM either -- they've already committed to throwing their money away as an entertainment expense.

BRM is for those serious players who want to insure themselves against variance. I don't care how good you are, long stretches of negative variance can absolutely occur, and do.

pokerclann1 · Oct 14, 2013

dmorris68 said:
While you can learn to play lower variance styles of poker, it in no way replaces the need for BRM. And playing too nitty is exploitable, and will seriously diminish your profit potential. To succeed in poker, you need to make +EV decisions over the long term, wherever they come up. If you're not making the +EV play, then you're making a mistake, period.

But it's possible (and common) to run really bad over the short term even when making +EV plays. This is why we say don't be "results oriented." If the play was the correct EV play, then the results don't matter. However in the short term, a bad run can set you back a lot of buy-ins. If you haven't see a 20-30 BI downswing yet, you simply haven't played enough poker.

+

xCipx · Oct 14, 2013

I like moving up gradually when I start winning money. but to be in a big stakes table my whole bank roll I would never do. even if you have been winning all day I would never take more than 70 percent of my bankroll to a table. but you never know

dmorris68 · Oct 14, 2013

xCipx said:
I like moving up gradually when I start winning money. but to be in a big stakes table my whole bank roll I would never do. even if you have been winning all day I would never take more than 70 percent of my bankroll to a table. but you never know

Sitting with 70% of your BR, or anything remotely close to that, is a terrible thing to do unless you're happy being gambler/casual player who loses and redeposits every time you play. You might as well sit with 100%.

If you're practicing any sort of BRM at all, you won't sit at a single table with more than 4-5%. The real BR nits would say no more than 1-2%.

babydrago9 · Oct 15, 2013

From starting off as a strictly freeroll tourney player, I can safely say I have the worst BRM. Cashed multi times on stars and always just went straight into a tourney after then would play cash. Got upto around 60 dollars from 2 a few times, but when I get there it sinks in that I need good BR management. From then on I played small cash games/satelites/cheap MTT's, all the times I ended up losing it. I believe at low stakes [anything upto 150] you should try to risk most your money to get there instead of cheap games, and idc about having good BRM, I just play to get big real money. So when I get to 60 ill put 40 in cash and see where it gets me as thats what I prefer [decent stakes cash]. Went onto carbon and got 3, got upto 26, played 20 dollar tourney, came 5th for 80, put 50 in cash, upto 200; played high stakes cash with 80/100, got upto 600 after about 7hours, withdrew. Prefer doing this to what i did before, before I just played small tourneys with cash for fun, now I play freerolls for fun and play to win big money now from small money. If i lose i try again, if i win then great.

madethegrade · Oct 16, 2013

I think its all dependant on the style of play. like if you play like isildur no need more major bankroll management. if you want to be long term in the money the all guns blazing style is not for you.

0Magic14 · Oct 16, 2013

I am one defo not for BRM, If a game is going I'll play it, even if it is for my entire BR, I was in the Biggger $55 last night thought I would take a shot and see how I went. I managed to cash for $400 and that was 1/2 of my BR almost gone from playing that single tourney now I'm up over $300+ although I didn't win at those stakes you get more respect when you raise from OOP than you do when playing these Micro stakes. To be honest with you, I had enough of getting sucked out by one outs at these levels, people playing with there lasat $1.50 or $2.20 and going all in everytime it pees me off.

But if your wanting to be a GOOD winning player you really do need good BRM,and be willing to go over your HH to see if you can spot any leaks that are showing and fixing them, if you don't you won't be going anywhere

ChronicFish · Oct 16, 2013

if you use your whole bankroll to play with then you obviously have more money to deposit, i have moved away from MTTS and started playin 25/50nl and sometimes higher i will work my way up to 200$ withdrawl to 5 or 10$ burn my downswing with that and go to 0$ make another deposit and restart the procsess and its been doing great so far lol.

lilturkgirl86 · Oct 17, 2013

bankroll management is one of the most important things in poker.. dont care how big of a name you are, bad streaks happen.. and if you lose your head, or you play beyond your means you will go broke.. it has happened to countless players, and numerous times even at the highest of stakes sadly

detourglr · Oct 25, 2013

I think of a poker player that doesnt display good Bankroll Managing skills is a fish.. Becuase their play usually reflects that. taking ga,bles when they shouldnt.. though makes these players more dangerous when they only hit their draws against you. LOL though this is my reflections since I am a low stake poker player

Bankroll management...some players dont need it?

cotta777

Visionary

IPlay

Bum hunts 25NL

sillymunchie

Visionary

cotta777

Visionary

dmorris68

Legend

Henry Minute

Legend

XXPXXP

Legend

jimmylytle2

Rock Star

cotta777

Visionary

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle

n3rv

Visionary

BigCountryAA

Visionary

ammytyagi

Visionary

AcesUp747

Rock Star

vinylspiros

PIRANHA-------->< (((º>

dmorris68

Legend

pokerclann1

Rising Star

xCipx

Rock Star

dmorris68

Legend

babydrago9

Rock Star

madethegrade

Enthusiast

0Magic14

Enthusiast

ChronicFish

Rock Star

lilturkgirl86

Enthusiast

detourglr

Rock Star

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site