blonde poker forum

OK - so following on from the thread about who's winning and who's not, I have got to thinking about bankroll.

Up until now, I reckon I must be a bit ahead in terms of money won vs money staked, but have no way of knowing this. I didnt think this was a problem, as my income streams can more than cover my "normal" lifestyle and my poker "lifestyle". But here comes the crunch - without running your poker income and outgoings like a seperate business, how are you supposed to know how good you are ? I would like to split this into two seperate areas :

Tournament Bankroll.

ok - so this will in itself require to be split into several areas. I guess you will need a bankroll for live tourney play, and a bankroll for online tourney play. The idea here is that you would hold this in neteller, and use it as required on whatever site you wish to play on.

the big question is how much should be put into these bankrolls ? Is there a magic formula which relates the average buyin to a factor multiple, say for example, your bankroll should equate to 50 tournament buyins ?


Cash Game Bankroll

ok, so I think this should be more simple, but probably isnt. My preference for cash games both live and online is either 1/2 no-limit or 3-6 limit. So how do you work out an adequate roll to cover these games.


So these are the basics. Other things for consideration need to be

- when to take money out ? - should you keep your bankroll at the starting levels, taking out anything extra on a regular basis ?

- should you move up the levels if you are consistently winning ? Obviously this would mean re-assessing the size of the bankroll required.


All of this is based on being in the fortunate position of being able to fund such a bankroll out of ones pocket, rather than having to work up the levels. Is this wise ?

I would appreciate input on this topic - thinking about it, there is probably very little written about this in terms of books. We could probably fill a whole book out of it !

thanks

There is a lot of stuff about bankroll considerations written in books. A lot of people say you should have x amount of buyins or only have x amount of your roll at risk at any time. I think however it depends on the games you play , the stlye you play and you risk tolerence level.

One thing is for certain though, if you play with a finite bankroll you will go bust in the long run.

?!?!?

I'd like to hear the proof for this. Don't forget to show your working out.

For NL cash  20 buy in's is considered the minimum, so 1/2 that is 4000. A buy in is considered to be 100 bb's.

SNG's 50 buy in's is probably enough. MTT's and limit aren't my games so i will not be able to tell you off the top of my head.

SNG's i play off 20x buyin, and move up and down levels according to bankroll, cash out anything over 30 buyins, or use it for mtt's.

There should be no set figures for the 'right' amount of your bankroll you should put into play etc

I think it is as simple as play wherever you feel comfortable.

One of the key factors of poker is being in a comfort zone, if your comfortable, you will play to the best of your ability.

All this 5% or 20 buy ins is nonsense in my eyes

If by 'long run' you mean 'until the end of the universe' then you might have a point.

Anyway, all bankrolls are finite.

The figures I hear knocked about are 20 buyins for NL cash and 300BB for limit cash.

I think we're looking for more than just magic numbers here.

The mechanics of it all, at what point do you withdraw from your bankroll, rather than build to it (for me it's when the leccys due) do you keep it sepearte for different types of games. (I don't) etc etc

I have some NOT FOR POKER savings. Apart from that, all other money is my bankroll, whether it's in an account online, in the bank, or in my pocket.

If I have to pay a bill, buy food or buy into a comp, money goes out, if I win, it goes in.

I keep a 'working roll' on my main site, which I withdraw form every time I the 'base' is increased by 10%, I have much smaller amounts scattered around in other sites that I use to play occaisonal sateilites or other tourneys. I withdraw straight to my current account and pay for any live games as well as living expenses etc from this. I have a set figure that I move into a savings account each month, this money is definately not for poker. On the rare occasions that I think my current account is a bit swollen then I put this into a different savings account.

Standard bankroll for limit holdem is 300BB.  I've known winning players who've had downswings bigger than this but it should handle all but the most horrendous runs.  Its possible to survive on a shorter bankroll than this but at some point in time you'll hit a serious downswing and see how volatile limit holdem can be, especially if you're playing short-handed tables rather than full ring.

Tournament bankrolls would depend on the size of the comps you're entering (in terms of players).  Obviously your chances of a barren run are far greater in 1000 runner comps than in single table SnGs!  Chances are that for someone regularly playing tournaments with, say 100 runners, the theoretical bankroll needed to eliminate risk of ruin to a reasonable percentage would be astronomical, so you just need to set yourself a reasonable limit (say 100-200 buy-ins) and hope you don't hit the arse-end of variance!

Contrary to what you think on book coverage for this stuff there's a very good book, Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth, which covers this in some detail (the maths might put some off though).

With regard to moving up, the bog-standard answer of 'play as high as you can' is not necessarily always the right one.  Many people find a level that they're comfortable with and choose not to go any higher, even if properly bankrolled to do so.  Its all to do with personal enjoyment and reasons for playing and only you know what's best for yourself here.  If you reach a point where the swings adversely affect your enjoyment of the game then there's no reason to force yourself into bigger games just because you can afford to.  I went through something like that after grinding my way up the limits when finally hitting my 'target' of multi-tabling $15/30 limit tables on Party (which at the time were about as high as you could play there, other than for a couple of $30/60 tables with huge waiting lists) .  Every day seemed to produce a 4-figure result but I ultimately  found that the enjoyment of those in the + column were outweighed by the frustration of those in the - column. 

Consequently, I temporarily dropped down limits in order to try and avoid this.  The hardest part of playing those limits for me was being able to easily equate wins and losses to something such as 'big bets' won or lost rather than a $ amount with a corresponding 'value' attached to it (e.g. I just lost the cost of a holiday in Vegas on that hand).  I decided that, until I could do this better, I wasn't going to put myself through the emotional turmoil of dealing with those kind of swings.  On several occasions I've built an adequate bankroll to tackle these games again but something in the back of my mind (or maybe its the two holes I punched in the bedroom door at one point) has stopped me going back there!

Good luck on your quest Laz.

Sheriff

One of the problems I have at the moment is that my bankroll is too thinly spread across several sites.  Therefore, rather than playing at a limit suitable for the whole roll, my limiting factor is the amount I have on each site.  Consequently I'm playing limits that are much lower than the total bankroll merits.  For now I'm not too bothered about this as my current 'mini-quest' is to try an build independent bankrolls on each site via different methods (limit cash on some, SnG's on others, etc).  For some reason I'm finding nowadays that I quickly get bored at one site/game if I play it for any length of time so the ability to chop and change is quite therapeutic.  However, it can be a right pain in the arse at times as I'm basically doing my initial low-limit grinding quest on multiple sites!

Another problem I have is that most of my bankroll is in US$ and I generally have bugger all Sterling available.  Consequently, whenever I want to play live events I'm generally scrambling around for enough cash to cover the buy-ins in time to play!

Sheriff

I think conventional wisdom doesn't take into account multi-tabling enough... 300BB for limit or 20 buyins for NL aren't going to cut it if you are 8 tabling. I've had times where playing 8 tables I've had 15 buyins in play and only been a small winner on the day, running that off a 20buyin bankroll would be suicide. If you play 1 table, then 20 buyins should barely be enough I suppose... but its a nice feeling when you can lose a buyin and it doesn't dent your roll.

I like to have 100 buyins for NL and zero bb's for limit, lest I play the devils game.

As for withdrawing, you can pay yourself a % of your winnings each month, kinda like a dividend payment. You should already have plenty of money in the bank so that not earning anything for a month shouldnt be much of a concern to your daily way of living, unless you are a pimp with a 20k a month lifestyle.

Sheriff says this:

I'm not a fan of this thinking.. your bankroll is the global figure, if you lose money on one site then you just ship over winnings from another site.... going on mini-quests is ok but I think it costs you significantly with regards to earnings... and if you play for a living (I dont know if you do or not, you seem like a sensible chap so probably not) then it isn't a good idea to reduce earnings for "quests"


I think getting poor exchange rates on sums under £10k isn't a huge deal... it might cost you maybe a couple hundred quid in bad exchange rates, but if your expectation in a $1k tourney is a meagre 50%, you still profit from playing it even though it costs you a small amount to exchange it. What I would prolly suggest (and its what I do) is to get a bank account and keep most of your roll in there. Have a float in neteller, and then a few buyins on the poker sites... then you have your bankroll covered for every eventuality. It doesn't need to be "on site" for it to be a bankroll.

Also a great point is made here:


I think this is partly the peter principle in effect, and its also the psychosis of differing monetary values. Playing at a level where winning a buyin means less to you then losing a buyin is going to be frustrating, and lead to playing bad.... I dont really know how to phrase it, but lets say winning $1k makes you quite happy, but losing $1k makes you very pissed off, then naturally the value of $1k isn't the same in either direction, and losing it is more likely to make you play bad then winning $1k is going to make you play better. I think that the optimal level in ring games is where the emotive value of winning/losing one buyin is the same, and you should have a pretty good idea of where that level is.

I'm the same as Red, except that I don't have the savings presently, so all bills have to come out of my bankroll.

It can be a bit of a "hairy" ride at times, and tough to move up the levels.

Since i decided to try take it a bit more seriously i thought i needed some good bankroll management knowledge.

I found this article and thought it was very good.

http://www.pocketfives.com/5C57520F-8A89-43F3-97E6-54D240CB3E59.aspx

No, I don't play for a living so I'm reduced to a few hours play in the evening outside of work.  This creates the classic situation of 'want to treat it more like a profession but don't really have the time'.  Consequently, I made a conscious decision to try to get back to treating it like a recreation more than anything else so these little quests are fine for me for now as it helps me to do that.

I do actually treat the bankroll as a global figure and transfer money in and out when I have to but having it spread out across several sites creates a few problems, particularly playing limit holdem with its associated swings as the balance I have on one particular site can easily get wiped out in a short-space of time playing the 'whole bankroll' limits.  Consequently I'm tending to play the limits that suit that site's bankroll by default, as its frustrating to have to re-deposit at a site in a short space of time, hence the 'mini-quest' I referred to which has developed as a result of this, rather than as a result of an upfront decision to do so.

Again, its not an issue for me at the moment and playing these limits is probably helping the attempt to get back to a 'recreational' state of mind in the short-term.


I do have a separate poker bank account and everything that's within the roll has been grown from a $100 deposit I made in November 2003.  It was important for me to do this ASAP so that I could reassure family/friends who I suspected would naturally worry about all this poker playing that this wasn't mortgage/grocery money being gambled.  However, another reason was to earn interest on the 'unused' portion of my bankroll rather than have it sat dormant.  However, when the need arises to spend a chunk of my bankroll (most recently on my wedding) its far easier to 'nick from' the Sterling portion than the $.  Consequently, the Sterling bankroll is always 'skint' relative to the online funds!

Anyhow, the reason for sharing all this on the thread was really to try and get the point across that its really down to the individual to decide what they want to get out of the game and that there's nothing wrong with not moving up in limits if they don't want to.  Ultimately, if people are playing as a hobby and want to 'have fun' doing so then there may come a point where the progression in limits starts to affect this.  If so, no-one should feel compelled to continually play higher if they don't want to and have no particular reason/desire to do so.

Sheriff

I keep my BR at 500bb ( I'm a limit player :p ).
Once I hit 500bb and am happy I'm running over 2.bb/100 I'll move up to the next level.

I agree with on the comfortable side of things but i think that you contradict youself in the last sentence.

I used to play tourneys with 1/5 or 1/4 of what i had in my account, knowing that i could always deposit more and never seperated "poker money" from general life money. I'd always withdraw big wins and hate it when it was tine to deposit again. I was comfortable playing with 1/4 of my available balance as it wasnt alot of money to me but hated the time i had to deposit again.

After looking into bankroll management i realised that only ever playing with 5% bankroll in 6-30 player SnG's is optimal personally. This way it doesnt even bother me financially when i get knocked out a game and feel that it makes me play at my best always. This is purely my view for online poker, i've seen steady profits in the two main accounts i play on (only 3 hrs max a day.) I dont play cash which slows profits but steadies them for me. I have a seperate bankroll for each site i play on and the way i work going up a level is only moving up when i the next level is 5% of my current bank roll.

E.G i played on full tilt and done an experiment on myself last year (while off work with a leg injury) I deposited $20 and played $1 SnGs mostly 6 handed, some 10, some 20. Once i hit $40 moved onto $2 and then $5 at $100. My aim was to turn this into $1000 but went back to work when my bankroll was around $600. This isnt money that can earn you a living but a few more stakes up and then your talking.

It is different for me in live poker as i dont play everyday. If i did play live every night i'd use the same system however i only play once per week (twice max), so i just use my "general life" money for these and any winnings go back in to general life money.