okay, I'm not a noob, but here's a noob question anyway

Since UIGEA and what it taught us about the realities of online poker (for example, that maybe 5% of online players are profitable as opposed to the 30% figure everybody was spouting pre-UIGEA), has there been a revision in the thinking about what size bankroll is appropriate for starting at a particular limit?

The old figures were between 300 and 500 big bets for limit, but the story on no limit was diverse. Some said 100 buyins, some said 25 buyins, some said between 2,500 and 5,000 big blinds. What is the latest thinking?

Also, suppose you start online at 1/2 NLHE and then make enough profit to move up to 2/5. If you don't do well, how much do you lose before you drop down to 1/2 again?

Thanks, guys.

pisant said:

Since UIGEA and what it taught us about the realities of online poker (for example, that maybe 5% of online players are profitable as opposed to the 30% figure everybody was spouting pre-UIGEA), has there been a revision in the thinking about what size bankroll is appropriate for starting at a particular limit?

The old figures were between 300 and 500 big bets for limit, but the story on no limit was diverse. Some said 100 buyins, some said 25 buyins, some said between 2,500 and 5,000 big blinds. What is the latest thinking?

Also, suppose you start online at 1/2 NLHE and then make enough profit to move up to 2/5. If you don't do well, how much do you lose before you drop down to 1/2 again?

Thanks, guys.

Click to expand...

It depends on what type of player you are. Are you a recreational, serious or professional player? Also, your BR for current level, in my opinion, shouldn't drop below minimum BR for one level down which is approximately 50% BR at current level.

Here is general buy-in guideline to get you started:

Ya i agree. It all depends on what type of player you are. If you are a noob which you aren't then you def want to start in proper br management form. gl and c ya around

Could you guys please define "recreational," "serious" and "professional?" I have a feeling those terms have special technical meanings in the world of poker.

Who ever said 30% of poker players were winners? I've been around since before UIGEA and that's news to me. I've always known better, in fact 5% is probably on the generous side.

As to BRM, it will depend on a number of factors. Stakes played, whether you're a winning, break-even, or losing player, game type (ring vs sng vs mtt, ease of getting money online if you need it, whether poker is your sole or primary source of income (which defines "professional"), etc. etc. I'm assuming you mean cash.

I'd be interested to know how the 5% figure was arrived at, and thus how accurate it's likely to be. I'd guess 30% is too high, but don't know if I'd go as low as 5%.

Probably 7%

Plus some of the lose their winnings by gambling elsewhere, which may be where the 5% comes from

How can it be so low???

If you start with a small BR in 2NL and stick to decent BRM and move up/down etc. according to BRM you are ALWAYS in the green.

I've heard it's as low as 99:1, but don't claim it to be accurate. But you guys have to remember that considering every player, the number of that come to CC or 2p2 are a fraction. I'm sure the % is higher within our community, but across the board, it's going to be single digits. I still think 5% might be a bit generous for the total demographic.

I don't see how that is mathematically possible.

LD1977 said:

How can it be so low???

If you start with a small BR in 2NL and stick to decent BRM and move up/down etc. according to BRM you are ALWAYS in the green.

Click to expand...

So nobody ever redeposit at a poker site? Of course! The poker sites stay in business precisely because nobody ever redeposits! <sarcastic smirk>

dmorris68 said:

I've heard it's as low as 99:1, but don't claim it to be accurate. But you guys have to remember that considering every player, the number of that come to CC or 2p2 are a fraction. I'm sure the % is higher within our community, but across the board, it's going to be single digits. I still think 5% might be a bit generous for the total demographic.

Click to expand...

The percentage of winners at CC might be higher than 5%, but if it is higher than 5% it's certainly not MUCH higher. I'd be stunned if the percentage of winners here is 10%. Truly stunned.

Note: I'm discounting freeroll only players, as they have no chance to lose.

LD1977 said:

I don't see how that is mathematically possible.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you could think it's not mathematically possible. The winning 5% and the house take money from the losing 95%. That is not complicated.

There is a significantly higher percentage of players that COULD BE winning players, but the vast majority of them remain losers because of tilt and poor BR management. They win for a while, but one day they have a really bad day and lose a big chunk of their winnings due to variance and tilt. Not wanting to quit down 40% of their profit, they move up in stakes to try and get it all back quickly --- and it's all gone in an hour. These players could be winners if they could accept the variance and improve their mental game, but most of them never do.

-HooDooKoo

My point is that with minimal BR strategy you need 1 deposit max to ensure survival, assuming you are capable of defeating 2NL.

I am pretty sure more than 25% of total population can defeat 2NL since all you have to do is syphon money from spewers and maniacs.

Basically if so many people fail that is a matter of poor strategy.

As for CC, I would love to see the stats on all of us, I bet most long term active members (1 year+) are break even or better and I don't mean 2NL.

BTW anyone who is break even is actually winning due to bonuses and promotions.

LD1977 said:

My point is that with minimal BR strategy you need 1 deposit max to ensure survival, assuming you are capable of defeating 2NL.

I am pretty sure more than 25% of total population can defeat 2NL since all you have to do is syphon money from spewers and maniacs.

Basically if so many people fail that is a matter of poor strategy.

As for CC, I would love to see the stats on all of us, I bet most long term active members (1 year+) are break even or better.

Click to expand...

It's obvious that people failing to win long-term is a matter of poor tactics/strategy --- so why bother mentioning it? It's equally obvious that most online players have no real tactics/strategy --- so they lose.

And I think your comment about one-year plus CC members is VERY optimistic --- but there isn't really any way to tell.

Good luck.

-HooDooKoo

LD1977 said:

My point is that with minimal BR strategy you need 1 deposit max to ensure survival, assuming you are capable of defeating 2NL.

I am pretty sure more than 25% of total population can defeat 2NL since all you have to do is syphon money from spewers and maniacs.

Click to expand...

To be a winning player, you have to beat the levels you're actually playing. As an artificial example, let's say exactly 25% of all poker players are capable of beating 2NL. If the majority of them are playing higher (let's use 20%), that leaves 5% of all players who could beat 2NL actually playing 2NL - and not all of them are actually winning. Factor in players who could win at 2NL but who are playing higher and losing, and I have no trouble believing that the % of all players who are actually winners is low. I just don't have any real gut feel for how low.

Arjonius said:

To be a winning player, you have to beat the levels you're actually playing. As an artificial example, let's say exactly 25% of all poker players are capable of beating 2NL. If the majority of them are playing higher (let's use 20%), that leaves 5% of all players who could beat 2NL actually playing 2NL - and not all of them are actually winning. Factor in players who could win at 2NL but who are playing higher and losing, and I have no trouble believing that the % of all players who are actually winners is low. I just don't have any real gut feel for how low.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ever really gonna be able to figure that out. I do believe you are right it is low - but just what % never know.

But does winning and or losing at a site's casino or sports book have an effect on someone's win lose ratio. With that money either adding or subtracting from br?

I know a stupid question

etherghost said:

It depends on what type of player you are. Are you a recreational, serious or professional player? Also, your BR for current level, in my opinion, shouldn't drop below minimum BR for one level down which is approximately 50% BR at current level.

Here is general buy-in guideline to get you started:

Click to expand...

So if I play 4 tables of .01/.02 nl, do I need to have 4 times as much the recommended br?

BLACKSTACK said:

So if I play 4 tables of .01/.02 nl, do I need to have 4 times as much the recommended br?

Click to expand...

No. Multi-tabling does not materially affect BRM. Whether you risk 30 BI's at one time across 30 tables, or 30 BI's one at a time, it's the same risk of ruin. Just potentially faster ruin, but speed isn't a variable in BRM.

Now some people do argue for a bit more cushioning when multi-tabling, especially when starting out, to offset the inevitable adjustments that can impact winrate and variance. But that could be as little as 5 or 10 extra BI's until you're a steady winner at your table cap.

Among regular players with any real volume I have to believe the number of winners is at at least 25 to 30%. Accounting for all those players who made a deposit, quickly got destroyed, and then didn't redeposit 'cause poker is rigged or w/e is pretty tricky though. Most of those guys tend not to show up in your database.

I would be surprised if it was as low as 5%.

No way it's 25-30%. Not even among CC regs I would argue, much less across the entire poker player population.

So to get this right, 5% of players are sharing the money of the other 95%? By the way, where are we coming up with these numbers/ estimations, if not pure guessing? Is there any official source or link that can prove any of these statistics?

Most of the best players I know didn't follow the 100 buy-in rule on microlimits. You can be aggressive with bankroll management, lets say, 30 buy-ins on Nl2 and then you see how many buy in for bigger levels. Being aggressive with bankroll management is not the same as playing outside your banks limits. Of course, if you are a fish or a donk you will probably loose all in the long run.

The rake just mathematically kills the chance of more than a small percent of players being winners.

Of course, everyone could be a winner if they followed good bankroll management advice, but ...

As Sklansky was once asked, "What would happen if everyone followed your advice?"

His answer was: "They won't"

dmorris68 said:

No way it's 25-30%. Not even among CC regs I would argue, much less across the entire poker player population.

Click to expand...

Well, this question does come up quite a bit on poker forums, and in just about every such discussion I've seen there's been evidence to suggest that 25% or more would be a more accurate estimation than a paltry 5%. A quick google search turned up articles[dead links~tb] They don't constitute hard proof (and are a few years old now anyway) but they do make you think. I'd be interested to know why you claim there's no way the figure could possibly be that high.

Do you really get the feeling that 1 in 4 random players across the entire player pool are profitable? I don't even get the feeling that 1 in 4 poker forum regs are lifetime winners to be honest. There might be a few who binked major scores, still lose steadily at the micros, but still maintain a +ROI from the bink. Technically though, they'd still be considered lifetime winners.

Speaking of, are we all defining "winning" players the same way? Are we talking lifetime, or last X games, or since the day we started taking the game serious, etc. etc. Are we including or filtering out those big binks? For me, I consider it lifetime. Perhaps some don't. I certainly don't think it can be represented accurately by a sample group of players who played at least 100 games tracked by SS, as in the first article you posted. Both because 100 games is a very small point in time and we have no idea how many of those players were on the low side, and because SS is not exact in their stats. Combining the two would seem to exaggerate the margins of error there.

I'd have to really dig to come up with any meaningful counter evidence, and even then I'm not sure I'd trust it either. I've been reading single digits for years from various sources -- in fact this would be the first time I've ever seen a number as high as 25-30%, hence my knee-jerk reaction that it couldn't be. But it's also a subject I don't claim to have empirical proof of (nor am I sure anybody would), I'm just repeating the common mantra. And it seems to make some degree of sense to me considering my interaction with a lot of what I perceive to be losing players, which I'd put at far greater than 3:1 even here at CC (no offense to the forum at large).