Why 20 buy-ins is not enough

[JOEBOB69]

Can someone break this information down for someone who is poker tracker inept,such as me.Thanks

 

[F Paulsson]

Can someone break this information down for someone who is poker tracker inept,such as me.Thanks

Step 1: Imagine a really big bankroll for whatever stakes you play.

Step 2: Realize that you should probably have at least twice whatever you just imagined as your real bankroll.

 

[JOEBOB69]

Ok so if i think 50 bi is plenty it should be 100bi's? If this is right why may i ask.

 

[aliengenius]

Indeed, Ed Miller (et. al.) conclude (the very last page) their recent e-book with this:

 

[JOEBOB69]

Thanks alien i see the point but if your not playing for a living,an you have 50 bi lose 10bi's an drop down thats fine brm correct?

 

[F Paulsson]

Thanks alien i see the point but if your not playing for a living,an you have 50 bi lose 10bi's an drop down thats fine brm correct?

If you're not playing for a living, very little of bankroll management applies to you at all. And I don't mean for that to sound as facetious as it probably does, but it's a fact - bankroll management for recreational players is mostly a matter of keeping the games fun to play. For purely recreational players (typically found at 50NL and below, if we're talking no-limit, but stakes may vary) bankroll management is an exercise in playing with discipline; useful for later on but not technically necessary. For many semi-professional players (typically play 100NL+, but have another main source of income) bankroll management is mostly about not having to drop down when they come across a tough stretch. The reason they don't want to drop down is because it hurts their ego a bit (I would know; I'm the same).

For professional players, having to move down can mean the difference between paying your bills and not paying your bills because having to move down will cut your expected income by a lot. And on top of that you have the psychological problems of actually having to worry about your bankroll when you should focus on playing well.

Now, that said, I practised fairly heavy discipline with my bankroll starting the minute I learned what bankroll management was all about. Now that I live off of my poker earnings, however, I also appreciate that when I played recreationally, my bankroll discipline had more to do with pride than it did with security. I could theoretically have played every level with a very short bankroll since moving down in stakes wouldn't have had (not by much, anyway) any meaningful effect in my monthly income. The psychological reason I didn't was that I considered moving down "failing." The practical reason I didn't was because by forcing myself to play until I had doubled an already substantial bankroll was to make sure I was actually beating the game before I moved up to the next level.

 

[Daleyboy1234]

For SnG's would this be good Bankroll management. When you get 100 buy ins +1 of the next level move up. for instance if you have $99 you should play $1 tournaments. but when i get to $113.40 move up to the $3.40 Sng's then when i move up to $345.50 move up to $5.50. if you drop back below the threshold then move back down again?

 

[vanquish]

For SnG's would this be good Bankroll management. When you get 100 buy ins +1 of the next level move up. for instance if you have $99 you should play $1 tournaments. but when i get to $113.40 move up to the $3.40 Sng's then when i move up to $345.50 move up to $5.50. if you drop back below the threshold then move back down again?

that seems really conservative

i think 50 buy ins would be appropriate.

if you're talking about turbos, closer to 100 is probably good

 

[kmart99]

Fees, one of the best high stakes cash players in the world, had a down swing of -61 buy ins playing a mix of full ring, 6-max, and HU. He was winning somwthing like 15/100. That was his biggest downsing and he was rolled for (if i remember correctly) over 500 buy-ins at that point. I think 30 buy ins is still a safe starting point for 99% of people, but I wouldn't be just always keeping that as my BR. Eventually,l though, stakes would get high enough that I think you'd never want to be below a 150 buy-in BR. If I ever find a way to beat some of the mid stakes like 400NL, I'll just stick to a 150 buy-in BR. So $60k.

 

[kmart99]

On another note, Tonkaaaa posted that he had a +400 BI downswing playing $1000 6-max Hyper Turbos. And he was also one of the best in the world at that time, playing those games full time.

 

[CriesuaID]

On another note, Tonkaaaa posted that he had a +400 BI downswing playing $1000 6-max Hyper Turbos. And he was also one of the best in the world at that time, playing those games full time.

Not even the safest bankroll imaginable can estimate the loss of 400 buyins in a row. You should not take this case into account when planning the bankroll, anyway it is an example to learn that the variance can go to extremes.

 

[sandund]

That strategy don't work for online poker. Somethime is one buy in more than enough, and again sometime nothing is good enough.

 

[Reelmookey]

wow thanks for the graph it helped to understand the analitics alot better but i would consider 20xBB a affordable and safe spot to be playing from but i play alot farther aat 50-75x BB

 

[skezz28]

stop play))

 

[MREM]

Both of those graphs look pretty scary to me

How much of that variance is due to playstyle ? Anyone else care to post theirs?

 

[stokedog4]

That is a big downswing... not sure I could take that abuse. Hope I never have too... So I think I too will up my buy-ins for my BR management.

Good luck

 

[BlackJesus]

Who said 20 buy-ins is enough? Take a glance at more popular Bankroll management - they suggest even up to 100 buy-ins. I never stick myself to such conservative BRM policies but there is a notable amount of people who - seriously - are.

Me myself I am choosing 40 buy-ins per stake level. I am considering that safe enough althoug a bit to the risky side. 50+ per stake level would be safe for me.

 

[ksidrew]

Hey thanks a lot for sharing this. I have always used the 20 buy in mark for when I would move up and have lost the roll and had to start over multiple times.

Seeing this this graph really opened my eyes to how you can run bad for 100k hands. Thats crazy.

Next time I consider moving up Im going to try 30 buy ins and then move back down a stake level if i hit 20 buy ins

 

[lukeamac]

I haven't posted in a long time, and I won't post again for a long time.

I'll post this to make a point: if you're averagely good, 20 buy-ins cannot be considered safe bankroll management. If you do the math, you'll see that over this stretch of 419,000 hands I ran at 1.46ptBB/100. And I still pulled off two swings that would make the devil cry.

Please go ahead and attribute all (or most of this) to tilt, if it makes you feel better. I used to do that, too, when someone posted a sick swing.
However, having looked over these swings in a lot of detail, I'd give the following numbers:
Swing 1 (-36 buy-ins): about 30%-40% attributable to tilt
Swing 2 (-50 buy-ins): about 10% attributable to tilt

Take it or ignore it.

P.S.: Stakes are all 6-max and some HU, buy-ins $0.25/$0.50, $0.50/$1, $1/$2, $2/$4, $3/$6, $5/$10, $10/$20

Mother have mercy, wowzers

 

[caracaski220]

caracaski220

Are you reffering to blinds lest in your hand , or buy ins you have available to enter games?

 

[German629]

Hello, the All CardsChat Community! Have a good proverb (or saying): "There is never much money!"
This means their can to be not enough in any moment, as in Life, so and in Poker... My conclusion: than more,
by my opinion, you have buy-ins at the table(s), then better. Main, that this not harmed your general bankroll!

 

[bempassado]

First, thanks for the post.

This is a very nformative post for all begginers players such as myself. It's totaly diferent when someone tells you about the minimun necessary BB to start playing and when someone shows it in a graphic.

you opened my eyes, thank you sir.

 

[johnnyfinec]

I think its up to you. My comfort zone ends here, I can't play without 40 buy-ins

 

[Crash Burn]

It depends on the value of the Buy-ins you are going to play is enough to build a bankroll. But the correct thing is to have 100 buy-ins if you play buy-ins of $ 1.00 or less.

 

[Cam54]

I don't see how except under the most perfect situations with the best runs as a great player that 20 buy ins is enough ...it's not surprising to me that the math and stories from pros support this ...IMO 20 buy ins is a shot and not much more ....