Sheriff says this:
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.
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"
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.
Another problem I have is that most of my bankroll is in US$ and I generally have bugger all Sterling available.
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.
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
Author