I want to try an experiment with BR management...
Up to now my biggest downfall with BR management has been taking really big risks in an attempt to clear a bonus within a really short period of time. I own it. I knew better and did it anyway.
Other than that I was using the Chris Ferguson method for awhile, and it helped a whole lot, but something's been rattling around in my head for awhile and I wanna run it past some experienced players.
At UB before I got colluded against + knew people were seeing hole cards(spooked now, won't go back anytime soon), I would blow off steam from particularly nasty bad beats or ill mannered players by playing Blackjack
for play money. I tried out a few betting systems for fun and found that it was more fun screwing with people's heads than following any kind of betting system long term.
One of the systems I tried was Paroli and it's essentially Martingale in reverse. You don't bet more money when you're losing, you bet more when you're winning. To do it affectively and not go flat broke really quickly, you have to limit yourself. One site recommended 1-2-3-4 then start over.
Those numbers are multipliers in blackjack, but for BR management in poker, I'm seeing them as percentages. I'm thinking that with Chris Ferguson insisting it's important to never risk more than 5% of your BR at a ring game or 2% at a tournament, well, we can add a level. Bringing it to 1-2-3-4-5.
Since I'm still giving the Chris Ferguson Challenge a shot, I want to incorporate this idea into it. Instead of the Paroli betting system it would be an adjusted Paroli system for poker buy-ins.
Since Chris started with $2 and kept having to try again and again, with effectively 100% of his nearly non-existent bankroll on the table just to get started, I'm figuring this system's not a whole lot riskier in the beginning. In the beginning it's literally $1-$2-$3-$4-$5. You have to win at each level between 1 and 5, but if you lose at any point between, you go back to 1, and even if u win at 5 you go back to 1.
Now that FTP has penny stakes, this seems realistic. I've played enough in microstakes to know that there's such a thing as "table luck". It's when you're lucky enough to sit at a table that's insanely easy to beat. When I find myself at a table like that, I can't fathom why it would be best to leave with just a tad over 2x my buy-in so I'm thinking leave when the cards get cold.
Realistically, the initial risk is pretty much the same as using Chris' system. Initially Chris was risking 100%, then 50% and so on and so forth until he had enough to actually sit with just 5%. What has seduced me into wanting to try Paroli, is that it would minimize losses during downswings while maximizing winnings during upswings in the long term. It also seems like it would be a lot more effective for poker buy-ins than it is for blackjack. If you're good at poker you have the edge, at least you do against lesser opponents. In blackjack, the dealer always has the edge. They don't even hide it, it's just right in front of you, but most folks have too much fun playing to care.
So, if I want to play tournaments I can, I just have to wait until I'm back to 1 or 2. If I lose I'm at 1 and can choose whether I want to go with a ring game or tournament.
So far, I haven't won just $2 in a freeroll at FTP. Even pre-FTP I was winning $5 when I did win, but that was pre-cardschat and long before BR management even entered my consciousness. At FTP when I've won it's been more along the lines of $5 with $9 being the max so far. I'm optimistic about doing it again. There are so many types of freerolls
there, and I know I have a chance, we all do. Even if I do win just $2 next time, I'll still be risking 50% in comparison to Chris' 100%, but I know he's not a fool and if 50% had been an option, he'd have taken it.
Summation, I go with $1-$2-$3-$4-$5(starting over at $1 whenever I lose or when I get to $5 and on top of that I can stay at any particularly good tables until the cards go cold, but have to leave tougher tables with just a tad over double my buy-in). I do this until I have $100. Then it shifts to percentages. 1%-2%-3%-4%-5% and when I'm winning I'm really winning, but the starting over at 1% seriously curtails the problems that go along with losing streaks. Also I continue with my 3 strikes and I'm out policy. I figure if I can't get going within 3 buy-ins I'm either having lousy luck or not playing my best, either way I shouldn't be at a table.
Anybody spotting holes in the plan? It starts of relatively high risk and I know it. But beyond the initial risk. Is it bad?