Cash Game Bankroll/Buy In Question

[Boba Fett]

Just interested in what people think in this.....

Assume UK casino standard Full Ring £1/2 cash game 5% rake capped at £5 for pots under £500, tipping encouraged etc.  Min Buyin £40/No Max

Games are run on a feeder system, there is the occasional short-stacker but most players buy in for £100-200 however the main table can quickly become deepstacked and players will start buying in for more than £200.

Players in the game are generally "live" players as in they havent put in meaningful volume online ever, they havent invested much/any time on improving/developing strategy/getting coaching online.  There is a lot of limp/calling, most players really want to see a flop, most players are stubborn stations postflop, there isnt much 3/4/5 betting pre, they play very exploitably and make basic mistakes (We all know the type surely?)

Most regs and randoms in these games are recreational players.  They are not pro's, they dont have a bankroll they use for poker outwith their life money and lots of the players are underrolled for playing these games regularly but they enjoy to gamble.

There is a time limit on the game, it will finish at 5.30am no matter what unless the game has broken before this.  This causes a visible effect of winners locking up their profits closer to the end and losers exponentially widening their ranges and increasing their aggression in most situations in an attempt to get out for the session as the time winds down.

So in a game of this description we bring along Mr A. Hero - He has a £4k(20X100bb buy ins) bankroll that is exclusively used for these games and is separate from funds used for life expenses.  He will regularly have an edge over the standard table in these specific games.  He plays equally well short stacking <50bbs, playing 50-100bbs deep and playing 100+bbs deep

So I think we can all agree that the deeper the effective stacks are for Mr A.Hero, the lower variance the game will be for this player putting him in an advantageous position?  So Mr Hero should always strive to buy in to cover the table by this logic?

So the point Im eventually leading to.... is there a point with Mr. Hero's BR for this game that he should not try to cover the biggest stack in the game as it is risking too much of the bankroll in 1 game?  

If there is someone in the game £4k deep then obv Mr. hero shouldnt put his whole roll at risk in 1 game so is there a guideline for the point in which the advantage gained by being deeper stacked is negated by the increased risk of ruin to the bankroll?

ty

[StuartHopkin]

Personally don't think Mr Hero is rolled to play at all.

However 'soft' the game is he only has 20 buy ins which just isn't enough.

Start covering by buying in for £400 he has 10 buy ins and is on the road to ruin.

Any more and a couple of flips and he is finished.

However in theory if he is massively +ev in the games he has a better chance of going on an upswing before he goes on a down swing and maybe this will buffer his roll a bit.

[Boba Fett]

Personally don't think Mr Hero is rolled to play at all.

However 'soft' the game is he only has 20 buy ins which just isn't enough.

Start covering by buying in for £400 he has 10 buy ins and is on the road to ruin.

Any more and a couple of flips and he is finished.

However in theory if he is massively +ev in the games he has a better chance of going on an upswing before he goes on a down swing and maybe this will buffer his roll a bit.

I agree, a bigger BR would be much safer by calculating buy ins on a 200bb or more basis and effectively buying in for half of a buy in at the start of games but the same question still applies.  Say Mr Hero's roll is £10k (25x200bbs) and one night 1 or more players run up a stack that we want to cover.  At which point does over-buying become too much of a risk to the BR?

[kinboshi]

I agree that £10K+ sounds like a more sensible roll.

As to the question of covering the biggest stack, there has to come a point when the size of the biggest stack is excessive and places too great a percentage of the hero's bankroll at risk.  He either needs to select a different game to play, or sit with an amount that doesn't necessarily cover the other stacks.  If he's 200bbs deep, then he's still deep enough to play profitably and maximise the advantage he has over the other players.

Good question, and one that's relevant to a lot of people on here - including me.

[bhoywonder]

That is a good question........

If they are bad n if I had that br...I wouldnt risk it.....I would buy in short....double or triple up and b done....but I guess ur looking or thinking of stacking the big stack bad player.....risk vs.reward. vs. Br.busto....

[dreenie]

You have totally lost me, however you are my only hero....

[Solaris]

Do people really think having a 20bi bankroll is that bad when you're playing in a live setting vs fish?

Obviously it's not optimal, but we're playing 100bb poker here against retards incapable of adjusting properly. We should expect downswongs obv, but if we're in control emotionally I don't think it's too bad.

That said, given our bankroll I would never be buying in, in order to cover the fish - we simply aren't rolled for that.

If the games ran more often where I live, I'd give this a go with a 20bi bankroll. I don't think you'd be in as much danger of busting as people seem to think...

[EvilPie]

20bi is plenty if you stick to 100bb buy ins and don't worry about covering any big stacks.

You may miss out on a few opportunities to stack people but the risk of going bust makes that a minor consideration.

It's far better to stay in control and build the roll up to a level where you can buy in bigger and stay comfortable.

[mondatoo]

Yeah I don't think it that's bad, online 30 is enough but you'd rather have 50 to be comfortable, so for live 20 is ok but could go busto. GL Mr Hero.

[GreekStein]

online 30 is enough

wat?

[mondatoo]

online 30 is enough

wat?

You can grind nlhe cash with 30 bi's, would prefer 50 but it's not insane. You might run terrible and bust but not that likely ??

[GreekStein]

online 30 is enough

wat?

You can grind nlhe cash with 30 bi's, would prefer 50 but it's not insane. You might run terrible and bust but not that likely ??

Disagree.

30 bi isn't enough. The whole point of a BR is to not bust. If from 30 BI you can run bad and bust then it's not enough.

[mondatoo]

online 30 is enough

wat?

You can grind nlhe cash with 30 bi's, would prefer 50 but it's not insane. You might run terrible and bust but not that likely ??

Disagree.

30 bi isn't enough. The whole point of a BR is to not bust. If from 30 BI you can run bad and bust then it's not enough.

I said in my 1st post you'd rather have 50 to be comfortable, loving the irony of you telling me about br management.

[GreekStein]

online 30 is enough

wat?

You can grind nlhe cash with 30 bi's, would prefer 50 but it's not insane. You might run terrible and bust but not that likely ??

Disagree.

30 bi isn't enough. The whole point of a BR is to not bust. If from 30 BI you can run bad and bust then it's not enough.

I said in my 1st post you'd rather have 50 to be comfortable, loving the irony of you telling me about br management.

I dont really think 50 is enough online but don't get your knickers in a twist.

Also, not that ironic since I can't remember the last time my BR was smaller than yours.

[mondatoo]

online 30 is enough

wat?

You can grind nlhe cash with 30 bi's, would prefer 50 but it's not insane. You might run terrible and bust but not that likely ??

Disagree.

30 bi isn't enough. The whole point of a BR is to not bust. If from 30 BI you can run bad and bust then it's not enough.

I said in my 1st post you'd rather have 50 to be comfortable, loving the irony of you telling me about br management.

I dont really think 50 is enough online but don't get your knickers in a twist.

Also, not that ironic since I can't remember the last time my BR was smaller than yours.

Haha, I wear boxers, I know you can still fit happily in a pair but knickers are too uncomfortable for me.