Opinions everyone...............

[M3boy]

Do you think that if you double your online bankroll in a month, then you are playing outside of your bankroll?

(Mainly playing approx 50 MTT's and a little cash)

Discuss

[patman]

Too simplisitc a question with all respect - have to ask the obvious.

1. depends on size of bankroll to begin with.
2. how many games you play in a month to double it
3. level of cash games being played relative to bankroll.
4. buy in relative to your bankroll at the time

doubling your bankroll in itself is not playing outside your bankroll as your game may be consistently good enough to bring in the goods particularly if you are playing MTT on fishy sites. also you can get to a level you are comfortable with and accumulate. You can also move the level commensurate with the bankroll both up and down.

so to answer NOt Necessarily

[Royal Flush]

Unless you are on a crazy card rush, then yes!

Say you play 2 comps a day and stake $200 total (4 buyins at $30 and 4 at $20)

Over a month thats $6000. I know the 2 comps you are talking about so thats a 1st and a 2nd just to get your money back, then add in doubling your starting bankroll and its a VERY tought task to do without a very hi ROI or a low BR.

[ACE2M]

i've doubled my bankroll many times on a monthly basis (halved it many times as well) but i play a lot of sats and do well in them so my intial investment is often very small compared to the rewards.

[action man]

not really m8 it could be that youve just had an extremely lucky month hitting everything and getting paid the max.
  As long as, if the opposite was happening i.e you were playing badly, missing draws and losing the max to your opponents on hand after hand, you could avoid going broke.

 

[matt674]

Unless you are on a crazy card rush, then yes!

Say you play 2 comps a day and stake $200 total (4 buyins at $30 and 4 at $20)

Over a month thats $6000. I know the 2 comps you are talking about so thats a 1st and a 2nd just to get your money back, then add in doubling your starting bankroll and its a VERY tought task to do without a very hi ROI or a low BR.

But if you cash in the MTT's on a regular basis then your bankroll is steadily increasing at such a rate that you are still playing within your bankroll. Its the small wins that keep the bankroll ticking over til you get that big win and if you are good enough and use good bankroll management to play in the tournaments that will be most profitable to you i think it is easily obtainable.

[Royal Flush]

True the smaller cashes will keep you ticking over, but without that big place you will be treading water.

Last night in that 45k on stars, 20th only got $177, say you were in for $40-50, its only 3-4x the buyin, and thats 30th out of over 1000!!!!

[matt674]

but so long as you are continually treading water then you will always be playing from within your bankroll so that when the "big cash" comes along you have achieved your objective of doubling the bankroll whilst always playing within the limits of your bankroll.

I agree with you about the large field events on stars thats why you need good bankroll management and enough of a bankroll to be able to pick the most profitable tournaments without putting too much of your bankroll at risk. continually playing huge field tourneys is not going to be profitable in the long run unless you are good enough to continually beat 900 other players on a regular basis.

[mikkyT]

but surely to be playing within your bankroll you need to be playing events whose buyins to bankroll ratio mean you can sustain a long dry period (no treading water) without going broke.... and it sounds to me that many of you are not doing just that. Which is Royal Flushes point.

That is bad bankroll management couple with good consistent poker compensating for the mistake.

[Wardonkey]

If you stick to STTs then a bankroll of 50 entries is sufficient, 250 STTs at a ROI of 20% would double your bankroll. If you can 2 table and play 4 or 5 hours a day then doubling your bankroll inside a month can be achieved quite easily.

[Royal Flush]

This is true WD, if you play this much of course you can, playing 60 MTT's though i think its very hard.

[12barblues]

Playing within your bankroll depends on both your average win rate and variance. The variance in large MTT's is huge compared to STT's. In addition, it depends on what each individual considers to be an acceptably low risk of ruin.

Are we assuming that the bankroll is fixed, i.e. cannot be supplemented from other sources or from disposable income that would otherwise be 'wasted' on wine, women and song?

There are precise mathematical formulae to calculate this sort of stuff but I can't remember the details. I could probably look it up if anyone is really interested in this kind of thing. The main thing I remember (and consistently ignore) is that you need a much bigger bankroll than most people think.

The other point that I found totally counter-intuitive is that variance in limit cash games is much higher than in no limit cash games.

[TightEnd]

Mr Blues

I would be interested in seeing those stats please, partcularly on size of bankroll and variance in limit/no limit cash

ta

[redsimon]

Tightend,

Re: bankrolls, there was a discussion of this in Sklansky's "Poker Gaming and Life"  called "is your wallet fat enough?" To summarise he provide a calculation which was Bankroll =Daily max swing squared divided 4xDaily average win. This was for limit poker. Obviously the longer you play the better you can work this out.

The figures were starker for tourny players. Using a computer simulation and assuming a certain % ITM he assumed a player needed 130 buy ins to be comfortable. Obviously this was written before online tournies and mega field live events so the number of buy ins will probably increase?