A divergent theory on bankroll management.

My order of poker books arrived today. I cracked open the first one, Barry Greenstein's Ace on the River. He poses some questions to "rate" your poker personality. The Q and A of one of those questions I'm posting here because people always defend bankroll management, but after reading the Q and A I feel a little more inclined to step outside bankroll management, although I don't know that I will anytime soon.

Q: "Do you make sure you are properly funded for any game you sit down in?"

A: "If a game is extremely good, get in it if you have a buy-in. There is nothing wrong with putting yourself in situations where you can win alot more than you can lose. Don't play too tight and predictably because you are short on money. Play your game. You might go broke quickly, but if you double up, you may be on your way to a big win."

The reason he thinks this way, as far as I infer, is because money is in flux (obvious, I know, but this is difficult to explain). Daniel Negreanu, Barry Greenstein, Jennifer Harman, and probably many others have gone broke in their poker career's, generally early on (at least for the ones I have named). Now I don't think Barry is advocating a loose and whimsical philosophy of BRM, or that he's saying play above your comfort level. But in the right situations, where you believe you have a firm edge, then there is nothing wrong with buying-in, even if you can't afford the long term swings.

Anyone else read the book and want to give their thoughts or interpretations? Or even if you haven't read the book, what are your thoughts?

Interesting to hear a statement like that, but then again, no surprise coming from a multi-millionaire.

Probably also depends on what level buy-ins you're talking about. At the mid to lower and micro stakes buy-ins, the online play is horrible, imo. Where is the 'edge' in putting up a large portion of your BR where you "might go broke quickly"? Is there an 'edge' at a ring game where most players are prepared to reload over and over and over, accounting for the swings?

As always, it is very easy for someone else to spend YOUR money. I prefer to spend mine a little more wisely. I'll stick with good BR management guidelines, it's worked well for me so far.

nevadanick said:

I prefer to spend mine a little more wisely. I'll stick with good BR management guidelines, it's worked well for me so far.

Click to expand...

That's about right!!!! Give that man a cigar :smokin:

I don't doubt Barry for one second. I know I have severe limitations as a player. I don't have the skill or savvy to judge whether a game is good and I can beat it soundly. I play at the micro-level. What little BR I have I need to protect.

Once I have played 200,000 hands and have sound poker judgement on what I can beat and what i can't, maybe I'll be more brave. Until I know what I'm doing--which might be awhile, I'll just error on the side of safety.

he's talking about live poker. That kind of behavior really does not exist in online...you can pack it up when you want to. there is always a good game ... he's really talking about the drunks strolling in off the boardwalk...lol

BRM is the only way to survive

It's entirely possible he was focussed on live games when he wrote that, but that doesn't mean the same conditions can exist online.

The more important question for someone planning to follow this advice is, do you know what a soft game is? I mean really know? What's your plan for beating it?

After reading about half the book, I think I can understand and explain Barry's point of view a little better. First off, he does mention the need to have yourself staked based on your win rates and play style a bit later, but it's not forumlaic or detailed on bankroll amounts to a big extent and it doesn't contradict what he states in the quotes I posted.

I think his Q & A for the BRM question has to do with something I like to call the "infinite bankroll" (neat name, and a neat concept to). Let's pretend that you are completely broke. You have no money to play poker. In fact, you have no money for food or gas, no possessions, no house. You have absolutely nothing. But that's not true.

This is where my "infinite bankroll" comes in and my interpretation of Barry's reasoning. The mere fact that you are alive is value. You're abilities define your bankroll. Whether you're a college educated professional who can obtain a high paying job, or someone with only the basic abilities endowed to every human being, you have worth. And the difference in that worth is the subject of many economic classes (in fact this post is a brief and basic economics overview with tie ins to poker).

Let's take someone with no education or training. They can still be a functional member of society through on-the-job training. For example, I worked at Wal-Mart as a cart monkey (pushed carts back to the front of the store) during my first winter break at college and worked with people who were mentally handicapped, performing a job useful and necessary to society. There was even a cashier missing an arm who pushed carts one night for some reason. Anyway, I think you get where I'm coming from by now so I'll pull back from this little tangent.

Because you are alive and have or can obtain the skills to earn a wage, you have a bankroll or the ability to get one. (Bankroll here not referring only to poker, but to all money related activities.) Therefore, you have an "infinite bankroll" and always have the ability to make money, from poker, a job, or another endeavor. Barry went broke once or twice and used his university training to get a job and eventually got back into poker after several years of normal life.

If you put your bankroll at risk in a situation where you are a large favorite and go bust, so what. People still need goods and services, and money will not stop being printed. Besides, most people don't play professionally and have primary incomes. And professionals, especially live ones, can take and give loans to other professionals. It happens frequently in Bobby's Room at the Bellagio (so I've read) and it probably happens even more elsewhere. (Of course, as Barry points out, you have to be careful about who you lend money to and who you accept it from. It sucks to be owed money when you need it.) This is my "infinite bankroll" theory and what I think Barry is getting at.

Thefatman313 mentioned Barry talking about live poker. I think that's true, but not because online players are tougher or that super easy games don't exist online; both those things are true. It's more relevant to live poker because of the physical nature and transperancy of seeing and dealing with chips and money. online poker has the disadvantage (or depending on people's spending habits, advantage) of not being able to quickly acess your winnings. Especially in the USA where lack of regulation dissuades many banks and credit cards from dealing with poker sites, but even in Europe you must transfer the money from your poker account to an online bank or credit card, then you must go to a real bank to collect the money or use your credit card to spend it.

Oh, and one last thing...

vanquish said:

cool story hansel

Click to expand...

Ughhh, what?? Hansel as in Hansel and Grettle, the fairy tale kids who were easily seduced by the witch? Like I'm easily seduced by what Barry wrote? Either you are way underestimating me or I'm extrapolating your post wayyyy to much, lol.

Isn't that what most people already do? They think they are good, they risk too much all at once, and when they finally lose it all (due to variance, right?), they just deposit some more, wherever they manage to get it. Doesn't seem to work out that great for the majority.

RogueRivered said:

Isn't that what most people already do? They think they are good, they risk too much all at once, and when they finally lose it all (due to variance, right?), they just deposit some more, wherever they manage to get it. Doesn't seem to work out that great for the majority.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what confused me about this at first too. But the great majority aren't winning players. And even many winning players wouldn't have the self discipline to admit they were outclassed or to judge if the game is worth the risk. The book isn't a normal poker book, it's got chapters on odd subjects: "Psychology of gambling", "Brain Chemistry", "Poker and your Family", "Poker and your Sexuality", and others. That's about half the book. The other half is normal strategy advice type stuff most books have. The book isn't aimed at improving your play at a certain game, it's aimed at improving your overall person (as it relates to poker). It's aimed at professional and want-to-be professional poker players. This is why I can't use this advice now, and may never use it. It's why most of the forum members (including me) shouldn't step out of BRM, but the advice is still worth sharing/arguing. I'm not a professional, and I certainly am not in a position where I am such a favorite at a game I feel comfortable stepping outside of BRM for a big score. But some people, very few, are. And this book is aimed towards them, and it's aimed at people who want to be that way.

Well, I'll say this for him -- he knows how to define his target market, a market that probably doesn't have a lot of options to meet their needs. That's good marketing! I was never a big fan of his, don't know why, just from watching him on TV, but now you've got me curious. I think I might enjoy reading some of those chapters you mentioned.

We've all seen players like you're talking about in other sports. They are the hotshots, the rebels, the one's that don't care what people think. They either end up gazillionaires or crashing and burning in front of everyone or most likely both. They make headlines, good and bad. In poker, in the long run, I fear for them, but it's their choice and I'm sure it's a fun, wild ride, while it lasts.

TBH a lot of pros dont follow proper BRM.

Many pros simply went to vegas, won a big tournament and thought 'hey this poker thing could work for me'

They got a bit more luck over the next couple of years, a couple more big wins as they developed their poker skills and before long they became the stars they are now.

However for every success story here there a a thousand suckout stories. BRM is simply a means to an end.. and that is to keep you playing for as long as possible without adding moey to your bankroll from other sources.

If you are a millionaire.. BRM is less important.
If you play very low stakes.. again its less important because to top up your bankroll dont actually cost that much.

I 'define' a bankroll as an amount of money that you couldnt replace within a week or two from other sources, other than loans! So, whilst you can apply BRM to $20 .. $20 dosnt really count as a BR either so you can be much looser with it. However as the BR begins to grow, the figure becomes more difficult to replace. So BRM becomes more important.

You shouldnt look at BRM as something that keeps you out of of big soft games (although it does) rather its a stratagy that allows you to deal with varience. After all badbeats occur in soft games too.

If you stick to BRM, it really dosnt matter if you win or loose your next buyin... ever!!

There was a great poker player.. I cant remember his name.. but he didnt use BRM.

Over the years he won an estimated $30 million .. got a a few wsop bracelets too.

In the end.. he had about $800 to his name.

Thats the danger of working without a safety net

yeah, i don't agree with this guys idea. BRM matters a lot, and in the long run (unless you are a pro or something) you are going to lose $$

one of the things that i have learned is that online you dont necessarily have to follow these set br management plans

your poker br is your money that you have set aside for poker (whether it is online or in your pocket)

often i see someone say, i have 25 dollars on this site
i am going to grind 10 cent tourneys for 6 months then move onto 1 dollar tourneys

i guess if you can never deposit again, that is the idea
but if you can reload, why not play in something bigger that will actually build your roll above a snails pace

what i mean to say, is that when you have very little money online, i say 4 table it (say 100 bucks)
if you win, great you are off to a good start to building a br
if not deposit again

i see depositing at this point as reloading after busting in a local 1/2 game

i made this mistake for a long time when i first started playing
it took me months to realise that i would be in micros for the rest of my life unless i started to take a few shots

this obv is meant for someone that has a poker br both online and offline
what i mean is that the poker br you have, can be used and mixed and matched

it doesnt make sense to go to the casino and sit at a 1/2 game and reload if you bust, yet you are following the crazy nittish br strategies online with the only 50 bucks you have on there

conclusion:
when you are actually beating the games online and are a winning player, remember that your br is whatever money you have set aside for poker, whether it is in your account at that moment or not

this means that if you are rolled for 1/2 live and buy in for the full 200 every night at the casino

dont play 1 dollar sags online trying to build a roll off of the 25 bucks you have in your stars account

instead take 100, split it up over 4 nl25 tables and see what happens
if you did happen to bust out on all tables (unlikely you will bust on all 4 tables if you play tight at this level but for the sake of argument), then just deposit another 100

there is no diff between the two here