I recently read an article that says that you should not sit down at a cash table with more than 10% of your bankroll you think that this rule should be followed in order to keep the bank and how you play in that?

Depends on the Player and the stakes i guess. Its about Variance. The better you are compared to your opponents the less variance you will face because of the edge you have over them.

As a general rule of thumb you want to have a minimum of 20-30 buyins for your limit in NL cash wich would be 3-5% of youre roll. If you are a regular at 200NL online and by whatever reason decide to start at 10NL again, i can see people doing it with 10 buyins, thus 10% of the overall bankroll, but even for someone who crushes a limit thats a pretty aggresive bankrollmanagement, and it has to be expected that variance will crush you some of the time.

I like a bigger bankroll, I think if you have 200 buy-ins, this is the best solution. When I watched the streams of various players, I saw that the variance is very cruel and the loss can last a very long time.

Hi.
Although I play only in tournaments, but in my opinion, the acceptable risk is 1-3% of the bankroll per session, no more.
Good luck.

Originally Posted by Luepso

Depends on the Player and the stakes i guess. Its about Variance. The better you are compared to your opponents the less variance you will face because of the edge you have over them.

As a general rule of thumb you want to have a minimum of 20-30 buyins for your limit in NL cash wich would be 3-5% of youre roll. If you are a regular at 200NL online and by whatever reason decide to start at 10NL again, i can see people doing it with 10 buyins, thus 10% of the overall bankroll, but even for someone who crushes a limit thats a pretty aggresive bankrollmanagement, and it has to be expected that variance will crush you some of the time.

Great post!

When I'm playing more for fun just trying to 'spin up' a bankroll I may do as low as 5 buyins, but really 10 buyins should be the minimum (and that's very aggressive)

The whole point of having a good amount of buyins between is ensuring that even if you run poorly you can still withstand it and stay in the game. The goal is to never go broke.

Here's a video I made on that topic back in the day (simple and to the point)

You Tube

And one on how to build your bankroll following solid principles

You Tube

Variance will crush these loser sooner than later, just keep playing with them, you'll win after some time of taking horrible beats.

I guess 25-30 buy ins is optimal level for cash-games for recreational players, regulars have more buyins bankroll management because they dont want to go broke.

Originally Posted by kristersb123

I guess 25-30 buy ins is optimal level for cash-games for recreational players, regulars have more buyins bankroll management because they dont want to go broke.

It is actually the other way around. If you dont think you can beat a level play with a deeper Bankroll. If you are a recreational that learns the game start with a 50 buyins BR. If you know for certain you will crush a level Yolo it with 5 buyins. Expect in both cases to go broke

An example: If you are lets say a regular at NL200 that beats his limit over a decent samplesize of Hands with lets say 2bb/100 Hands he can expect to have a winrate at nl2 of lets say 10bb/100 Hands. Why? the competition he is facing is not on his level of game, thus he can expect lower variance. Edges at NL200 are way thinner and competition is bigger, so people will play deeper.

The probability of a loss after 100k Hands with a winrate of 10bb/100h = 0.078%
The probability of a loss after 100k Hands with a winrate of 2bb/100h = 26.355%

Originally Posted by Luepso

It is actually the other way around. If you dont think you can beat a level play with a deeper Bankroll. If you are a recreational that learns the game start with a 50 buyins BR. If you know for certain you will crush a level Yolo it with 5 buyins. Expect in both cases to go broke

If you are not a winning player, its not even possible to have a bankroll, you can only have a budget. And in that situation I dont think, it makes sense to set up general rules or guidelines. For some people it might be good to deposit 50BI, like you suggest, and let that be the money, they have set aside for poker for the foreseeable future.

But for other people it can also be totally fine to deposit a certain amount, every time they get their paycheck, just like they pay their bills every month. The only important thing in this situation is to not play for money, that are needed for other purposes.

As for professional players, they need to have a deep bankroll, because its not desirable for them to have to move down due to a downswing, since this will result in a lower hourly winrate.

This rule is very useful. And they came up with it for good reason. If you follow it, then losing money in poker will not hit your pocket.

Originally Posted by fundiver199

If you are not a winning player, its not even possible to have a bankroll, you can only have a budget. And in that situation I dont think, it makes sense to set up general rules or guidelines. For some people it might be good to deposit 50BI, like you suggest, and let that be the money, they have set aside for poker for the foreseeable future.

Im completely in your side here but I am also assuming that whoever even thinks about BR management and reads/ writes in Forums has the will to get better at the game. So for someone that learns poker I would not suggest to deposit 20bi. They will go broke in both cases but depending on how serious your approach to the game is you might atleast have the chance to improve before busting the entire roll. Variance is huge, even over stretches of 50k hands, so if you are a slightly loosing player a bigger bankroll atleast gives you time to work on it.

Originally Posted by Luepso

Im completely in your side here but I am also assuming that whoever even thinks about BR management and reads/ writes in Forums has the will to get better at the game. So for someone that learns poker I would not suggest to deposit 20bi. They will go broke in both cases but depending on how serious your approach to the game is you might atleast have the chance to improve before busting the entire roll. Variance is huge, even over stretches of 50k hands, so if you are a slightly loosing player a bigger bankroll atleast gives you time to work on it.

If the idea is, we want to become a winning player, but we are not yet sure, we are, then I totally agree. This is how I have approached real money poker myself. The last few times, I started out, I deposited 100$, which is exactly 50 buyins for 2NL.

I never needed anything near that much, since I pretty much immideatly went on an upswing on both occations, but it will give peace of mind, so you dont panic to much about losing a few buyins. And you are also reasonably near the point, where you can move to 5NL, so you dont set yourself up to grind 2NL for an eternity.

After that I do think, its ok for recreational players to go a bit more aggressive though. Rather than waiting to play 5NL, till you have 250$, maybe 150$ or 30BI is enough. And for people, who are already proven winners, even less will also do for 5NL, as long as they drop back to 2NL no later than at 40-60$.

When you dont depend on poker for living, and you are playing any limit higher than the lowest available, bankroll management is mostly about, how big swings affect you mentally, and if you have the discipline to actually move down, when you lose. A lot of people end up doing the opposite, and that is a sure way to set yourself up for busting your roll again and again.

20-30 buyins would make feel better playing a certain limit , if I had overall success I would continue , if not I would stop before spending too many buyns/bigger part of my bankroll