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?

doesn't FTP have 10% rake at 10NL and < ?

compared to stars 5%

spranger said:

doesn't FTP have 10% rake at 10NL and < ?

compared to stars 5%

Click to expand...

They added new micro stakes and changed their rake around, I'm not sure about the exact numbers but with rakeback it's pretty close to Stars.

the reason the ferguson works is because you have time to adjust to the difference in play at each level .. by playing with different stack sizes or at different blind levels you complicate things ..

that said ...i think you should be commended for experimenting ...it really is the way to improve

i think however you should have more clear boundaries ...if you double up
you should leave ... even on a "good" table...

also beware of pushing too hard at the lower levels in an effort to "get back" to the higher ones

good luck

Ferguson also gets 100% rakeback on his account being a red pro.

pfb8888 said:

i think however you should have more clear boundaries ...if you double up
you should leave ... even on a "good" table...

Click to expand...

I appreciate your reply because I feel like it's really constructive. I also appreciate the reminder of Chris' 100% rakeback left after your post.

Having said that I feel it's necessary to point out something that had me confused before as well. I thought I understood Chris' management system well enough to breeze through the video + sit n' learn. I only missed a couple of questions and one I missed was when to leave the table. Assuming you sat with the 5% ideal, if you leave when your money's at 10% of your BR, you've doubled up. So that's the one I clicked. I know now that I wasn't paying proper attention. So at least I learned. Point is, the correct answer was that you should leave the table when your stack exceeds 10% of your BR. Just doubling up doesn't cut it.

I'm going to see if I can't find an existing player rakeback. They're available from time to time. It's not 100%, but every little bit helps.

Also I need to clarify. Chris' story has changed over time. The original story + podcast went something like this "I won my $2 and decided to try PLO 8lo figuring variance would be lower. I lost and tried different games, finally settling on no limit texas hold 'em". That's a big difference from his current story of "I decided to start with no limit texas hold 'em", now isn't it?

So to get to another way my plan's different from Chris' is that I'm planning to focus on PLO. Not PLO 8lo and not NLHE. PLO at first and graduate to a combination of PLO and FLO once my BR can handle it. For tournaments I want to focus on NLHE + PLO + HORSE, but only at levels my BR can handle. I feel like the HORSE part of the equation helps to improve my overall game. I do want to be a better player overall, and if I can win money while I'm at it, so much the better. Like I said, only play tournaments when I'm at 1 or 2. Lately I've been miffed because the only freerolls I could get into have been the wsop feeders. I'd rather do just as well for cash than a chance at a chance to win a main event seat.

See Chris had the right idea when he was going to go with an omaha game. The problem with 8lo is that at the lowest levels many people don't understand the concept of the scoop let alone how to select a hand. A player at Chris' level would be bound to get schooled. I can only imagine all the quartering and worse.

But at the lowest levels, PLO can be very profitable. Fewer people know what a good to great starting hand looks like, and almost everybody thinks they're French. But everytime I play I keep hearing Kenny Rogers singing "know when to fold 'em". A really good player who happens to play French style can do that because they know when to fold. Most players aren't even close to being that good.

Realize that in PLO you're rarely risking a big chunk of your stack. Once you amass double your starting chips, you're on your way to playing even better. When you're surrounded by omaha players who are willing to play pocket trips and pocket flushes at a full table against raises and reraises, well, come on, all you can hear is "Cha-CHING!", they win with that junk once and think they're doing the right way only to lose it all in a few hands, so simple.

Realize it's easier to get away from a hand in PLO, and as for pot odds, boy-howdy, it's beautiful. People just can't let go of a set, even bottom set, and yeah you can really take advantage. Others can't let go of a straight, again you can really take advantage.

I admit that for a long time I could never fold a real hand to a potential hand. But now I can, if I'm looking at my hand + the board and it feels like I'll be outdrawn I can fold it. What surprises me is how many losers stay in with dummy ends of straights and weak flushes, so I can watch the hands play out and realize I made the right decision.

I'm far from pro, but I'm strong enough in this one particular area. Also, another factor is that the bigger your stack the better you can play PLO. Some say the same for NLHE. I suppose there's some truth in there, but the problem is, throughout the game, your entire stack's at risk. Not so in PL and FL games. Once you have the maximum or better, you can play so much better. You can take more small risks and watch them pay out very well. Furthermore I've practiced from heads up to full table. Heads up and short handed against a weak player or two is so sweet. Easy pickins. At a full table it's easy in a different way. People don't necessarily give credit to the nit for knowing how to play well and it pays off.

Let's just say I'm willing to take an educated risk. That I've observed and played my fair share at the lowest stakes and no stakes without any real goal beyond improving my game and learning from other people's both good and bad.

I still think Chris could have regulated his BR a lot sooner if he had given PLO a real chance. More outs + more clueless individuals = easier winnings. I could be wrong, I'm no pro. It's just a very strong feeling combined with observation.