Taking Shots

tenbob

tenbob

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2005
Total posts
11,221
Awards
1
Chips
20
I completly agree with you Stu, in that its a personal thing, and I certainly would not be an advocate of someone taking a "shot", at a game when they only have 20 buyins for it, or in some cases less.

I probably hav'nt made myself 100% clear in my last post in that I have included the ability to take "shots", in the system that I use. TBH anyone that uses a 100buy in roll has that facitity already built in.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Stu, your looking at it fairly basically, BRM can vary vastly from player to player.

While I consider being "rolled", for a game 100 buyin's, the wisdom out there is that 20 buyin's is enough, (really it isn't but whatever).

Taking myself as an example, I'm playing nl$50 with 150buyin's, and going by my own rules I'm under-rolled for nl$100. That is not going to stop me taking shots at a nl$100 game with a fish that I spot, or indeed stop me playing nl$200 on a live table. For me that's what I define as "taking a shot".

To put this another way.

If you stopped using the 100 buy-in rule and instead used 75 buy-ins as the minimum, then you could start playing 100NL games with your current BR without breaking your own guidelines.

The reason I look at this simplistically is that its quite simple.

Set a figure and stick to it.

If the figure is too high, lower it (and be honest and upfront that you are working to a lower figure; honest not only to others but more importantly yourself.)

Dont set a figure and then start coming up with scenarios where its OK to disregard that figure.

I keep saying the same thing over and over, but BRM is linked to variance and not skill so if you think 75 buying is (in practical terms) as good as 100 buy-ins in terms of protecting against variance then use 75 buy-ins as the rule. That is fine, there is nothing wrong with that.
 
L

Lofwyr

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Total posts
456
Chips
0
To clarify what I you quoted Stu: I would not advocate taking a shot if you're not already a winning player. And obviously, if you're a winning player, you will eventually become BR'd for the next level through normal play anyway.

But I don't think variance control is the only reason for BRM, I think psychological control is a reason as well. And being too rigid can actually be a drain psychologically. Regardless of how hard people fight it, it's literally part of human nature to become less engrossed with your current limit as you approach the BR for the next one. Check out "Optmal Level of Arousal" and "Yerkes-Dodson Law" on wikipedia or something. The rare "shot", under properly controlled circumstances, can help to keep a player properly motivated to play their best all the time.

Grinding at a limit also tends to plateau the development of other skills. You aren't challenged to work on higher level poker skills when you play against the same pool. Even though changes in higher limits are minor, they still exist and force some growth. As Uber said, BRM is a skill, sometimes you have to focus on the development of different skills.

As an aside: I think just switching the game you play has a similar effect to taking a shot.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
To clarify what I you quoted Stu: I would not advocate taking a shot if you're not already a winning player. And obviously, if you're a winning player, you will eventually become BR'd for the next level through normal play anyway.

But I don't think variance control is the only reason for BRM, I think psychological control is a reason as well. And being too rigid can actually be a drain psychologically. Regardless of how hard people fight it, it's literally part of human nature to become less engrossed with your current limit as you approach the BR for the next one. Check out "Optmal Level of Arousal" and "Yerkes-Dodson Law" on wikipedia or something. The rare "shot", under properly controlled circumstances, can help to keep a player properly motivated to play their best all the time.

Grinding at a limit also tends to plateau the development of other skills. You aren't challenged to work on higher level poker skills when you play against the same pool. Even though changes in higher limits are minor, they still exist and force some growth. As Uber said, BRM is a skill, sometimes you have to focus on the development of different skills.

As an aside: I think just switching the game you play has a similar effect to taking a shot.


We are on to psychological explanations now.

I could find winning players who would feel very happy, comfortable and in control playing with a BR of 10 buy-ins.

Psychologically they are BR'd realistically they are not able to deal with a down swing.

So psychological factors do not take precedence over protection from variance, because if that were true I would not be able to find players which were inadequately BR'd to handle a DS yet psychologically willing and happy to play with a BR that couldn't withstand a DS.
 
L

Lofwyr

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Total posts
456
Chips
0
Certainly. But in many of those cases the player has the "meta" knowledge that they could deposit more money or inflate their BR from elsewhere.

But you can't discount the psychological aspect of any poker issue. The best players in the world have trouble playing their A-game if they aren't motivated to do so.

Essentially: I disagree with the blanket statement that "taking shots is bad BRM and has little to no upside". It has useful application if done with proper care and understanding (and very infrequently).
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Essentially: I disagree with the blanket statement that "taking shots is bad BRM and has little to no upside". It has useful application if done with proper care and understanding (and very infrequently).

Disagree all you like.

BRM protects you from variance and you have no control over variance therefore care and understanding simply don't come into the equation.

But honestly, feel free to disagree.

Perhaps you would like to explain how being careful effects the run of the cards.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why a bad run of cards will not occur so long as you do this infrequently.
 
rileyl

rileyl

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Total posts
477
Chips
0
IMO this thread is kind of ridiculous. No one is arguing that proper BRM isn't a good thing to have but saying to never take a shot seems kind of silly to me.

I would never suggest taking a shot at a bigger game without a reasonable amount of roll for that game but I mean if your already near your limit and you see a really soft game it seems pretty stupid not to play.

If you set stop losses and as long as you know you have an edge over the game, I don't see why taking a shot is such a bad thing.

OMG I set a 50 buyin rule and I only have 45 buyin so I can't play this super soft game seems pretty silly lol
 
Dwilius

Dwilius

CardsChat Regular
Silver Level
Joined
May 5, 2008
Total posts
7,584
Awards
34
Chips
0
The fact that you have and edge over the fish has no bearing on required BR to play that fish at a given level.

BRM protects against variance.
Therefore the skill advantage you have over a fish has nothing to do with the minimum BR required to play that fish at a given stake.

Actually, your skill edge has a lot to do with bankroll requirements. Yes, BRM protects you against variance, but variance is partially a function of your winrate which is obviously directly related to your skill edge.

Plug some winrates into a variance simulator to see what a difference hand picking a game you have a significant edge at makes to your possible/likely downswings.

http://www.pokervariancesimulator.fr/
 
tenbob

tenbob

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2005
Total posts
11,221
Awards
1
Chips
20
Actually, your skill edge has a lot to do with bankroll requirements. Yes, BRM protects you against variance, but variance is partially a function of your winrate which is obviously directly related to your skill edge.

Plug some winrates into a variance simulator to see what a difference hand picking a game you have a significant edge at makes to your possible/likely downswings.

http://www.pokervariancesimulator.fr/

+1

People need to realise that there is more to poker than obeying blind rules. Otherwise NL holdem would be a solved game.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Actually, your skill edge has a lot to do with bankroll requirements. Yes, BRM protects you against variance, but variance is partially a function of your winrate which is obviously directly related to your skill edge.

Plug some winrates into a variance simulator to see what a difference hand picking a game you have a significant edge at makes to your possible/likely downswings.

http://www.pokervariancesimulator.fr/

We are going around in circles.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
+1

People need to realise that there is more to poker than obeying blind rules. Otherwise NL holdem would be a solved game.

Its your own rule.

If you dont think its a good rule to follow, why make it a rule in the first place?
 
tenbob

tenbob

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2005
Total posts
11,221
Awards
1
Chips
20
Not just a guideline rileyl, its more a dynamic.

Just for the record, if any player tells me that they are "comfortable" playing with 10 buyins for the game, they certainly are not a long term winning player. They simply have no understanding of poker, or if they do and they are gamblers.
 
Jodieblonde

Jodieblonde

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Total posts
532
Chips
0
Well, I'm not pro and doubt I ever will be. Enjoyed reading everyone's imput. I play poker mostly for the enjoyment as it's really fun. I love looking at the cards. I can remember the first time I played at a live table. I swear my heart was going to jump out of my body with excitement. Playing on my computer in my own home is so relaxing and it's here for me whenever I have time to play, which is more than I should.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
It's not a hard fast rule it's a GUIDELINE.

Guidelines are written to make it easier for individuals to follow underlying principles.

If the guideline proves to be inaccurate then the guideline is incorrect and is not reflective of the underlying principle and has to be revised so as to allow the individual to conform with the underlying principle; whic in turn is the reason the guideline exists.

If the X buyins rule is not satisfactory then please write a new unambiguous guideline which people should follow.
 
J

joemac696969

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Total posts
219
Chips
0
yea did it and ended up losin what little R I had, kinda bummed me out. I will stick to my leval till I can builb a bigger BR. GL ALL!
 
rileyl

rileyl

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Total posts
477
Chips
0
Stu you are making this way more complicated than it is. Let me put it too you simply...

1. You need to have a bankroll that is big enough that allows you to feel comfortable at the stakes you play and allows you to withstand the inevitable downswings.

2. The bigger your edge in a game the smaller this bankroll needs to be. (As tenbob said I'm not advocating 10 or 20 buyins)

3. If there is a game where you think your edge is big and you are still reasonably rolled for it, you are STUPID if you don't play in it because of some arbitrary buyin rule.

4. I don't even know what you are arguing about and don't think you even know you are just spewing words right now.

5. ....
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Its not an unambigous guidline, its basic stats, and heavily based on winrate and style.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...anded/statistical-bankroll-management-505739/

Decent read for anyone that missed it first time around.

That is basically trying to determine the mathematically correct BR size based on win-rate and SD we will call that figure X

Which I can completely accept and from that you get an estimate of how many buyins required to play your style.

What I cant see a shred of evidence for is that if you temperarily move up to a higher level where you winrate is unknown although estimated to be comparable yet less than your current winrate and your SD again is unknown although estimated to be higher as the general caliber of players are expected to be better is that somehow you come up with a number of buyins less than X.

That bit seems to elude me.

If people want to reduce or increase their number of required buyins in accordance with the data shown in that thread then that makes sense, but I still cannot see how a temporary shot at a higher stake could be done with fewer buyins than required at your current stake and I dont think that the author of that thread is making that claim.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Perhaps you could explain it in your own words.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
2. The bigger your edge in a game the smaller this bankroll needs to be. (As tenbob said I'm not advocating 10 or 20 buyins)

Your assumption is therefore that your edge is greater at a higher stake than your current stake and therefore you can use a lower number of buyins.

I disagree!
 
tenbob

tenbob

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2005
Total posts
11,221
Awards
1
Chips
20
That is basically trying to determine the mathematically correct BR size based on win-rate and SD we will call that figure X

Which I can completely accept and from that you get an estimate of how many buyins required to play your style.

What I cant see a shred of evidence for is that if you temperarily move up to a higher level where you winrate is unknown although estimated to be comparable yet less than your current winrate and your SD again is unknown although estimated to be higher as the general caliber of players are expected to be better is that somehow you come up with a number of buyins less than X.

That bit seems to elude me.

If people want to reduce or increase their number of required buyins in accordance with the data shown in that thread then that makes sense, but I still cannot see how a temporary shot at a higher stake could be done with fewer buyins than required at your current stake and I dont think that the author of that thread is making that claim.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Perhaps you could explain it in your own words.

Ya ok.

You have to realise that a good player will take a "shot", when the known winrate will be higher than the norm, not lower.

A decent example would be a fish that I'm stacking at nl$50 decides to move up to nl$200 to chase down his winnings, generally I will have an edge much greater for a decent amount of time even against the reg's at that level, at least until they adjust. This would also be taking into account the risk of ruin at that level. Remember a good player just won't take mindless shots, because well, thats mindless and not a sign of a decent player.

Lets take yourself Stu, I not 100% of what limits your playing atm, but from memory its nl$10. Lets say a total maniac sits on your table and shoves every hand until he loses 10 buyins. Then he go's and sits at a nl$25 table, do you follow ? Because if your risk of ruin at nl$25 is acceptably low, then thats a very acceptable shot.

Edit : A "shot", should never be a mindless foray into a limit that your underollerd for. If the game is good, and your edge is significant then imo, its acceptable. Sitting into a random higher table is a massive mistake, and one that you will likely spend a while recovering from. Also when your moving up, you should be taking shots on a very regular basis, moving directly from nl$50 to nl$100 is also a mistake, that move should be done in stages, usually in gradually increasing shot taking.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
Ya ok.

You have to realise that a good player will take a "shot", when the known winrate will be higher than the norm, not lower.

A decent example would be a fish that I'm stacking at nl$50 decides to move up to nl$200 to chase down his winnings, generally I will have an edge much greater for a decent amount of time even against the reg's at that level, at least until they adjust. This would also be taking into account the risk of ruin at that level. Remember a good player just won't take mindless shots, because well, thats mindless and not a sign of a decent player.

Lets take yourself Stu, I not 100% of what limits your playing atm, but from memory its nl$10. Lets say a total maniac sits on your table and shoves every hand until he loses 10 buyins. Then he go's and sits at a nl$25 table, do you follow ? Because if your risk of ruin at nl$25 is acceptably low, then thats a very acceptable shot.

HU this might work, but in a ring game the presence of other more experienced players is going to bring your edge back down.

In your example the 50NL fish chases his losses at $200NL.

Are we to assume that the other $200 NL players fail to notice both this player is a fish and that you are making moves on this fish? Surely the presence of the other players at the table needs to be factored in.

Perhaps the entire table is comprised of 50NL players chasing losses at $200 NL, in that situation your edge would be greater than it is on average at your current stake and therefore you could use a lower number of buyins.

That situation is very unlikely to come up.

So I dont think you can table select well enough to do what you are proposing; not in practice. In practice you will be using a lower number of buyins than even the graphs in the other thread dictate.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
The other thing to remember is when you read Leatherass' blog he claims that he never took shots (in the way you are referring to shots.. he was always BR'd for the stakes he played) so its most definatley not something that's required to progress.
 
L

Lofwyr

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Total posts
456
Chips
0
Disagree all you like.

BRM protects you from variance and you have no control over variance therefore care and understanding simply don't come into the equation.

But honestly, feel free to disagree.

Perhaps you would like to explain how being careful effects the run of the cards.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why a bad run of cards will not occur so long as you do this infrequently.

I didn't argue that taking a shot will in any way negate variance. I argued that accepting a greater degree of risk from variance can occasionally be worth it. The risk from variance is extremely quantifiable if you want to take a shot. Extremely manageable. You aren't doing this with the intent to stick around if it starts off well...you take a shot for this session and move back down. Win or lose. In part preparation for the eventual full-time move, in part as a change of pace or for any number of other reasons.

I state that taking a shot can have psychological upside. It's a difficult thing to state because it's so undefinable and different for each person. Leading to...

The other thing to remember is when you read Leatherass' blog he claims that he never took shots (in the way you are referring to shots.. he was always BR'd for the stakes he played) so its most definatley not something that's required to progress.
Which is great for him. But he is not most people. Some people are capable of playing solidly to the best of their ability 100% of the time. Most people are going to get bored at some point grinding the same game for hours a day and days on end. When they begin to get bored, they'll begin to get sloppy and play below their A-game. It's human nature, it's how we're wired. I think infrequent changes to your game (increase stakes for a session with buy-in cap or new game entirely) help to break the monotony and allow people to play their best game at all times.

Not playing your best is a terrible thing, too. Beyond the harm it can do to your bankroll, you don't grow very much as a player when you don't play your best.
 
Top