Cash game bankroll management

[pleno1]

Hi I think I tried, unsuccessfully, to provoke some discussion regardIng bankroll management previously.

For the sake of this discussion Id like to focus on cash games rather than MTTs.

Live

Let's say you have the following bankrolls what games should you be playing and what games should you think about taking shots in,

1) 2k
2) 5k
3) 10k
4) 50k
6) 100k

Online

1) 200
2) 700
3) 3k
4) 10k
5) 40k
6) 100k

Maybe you don't want to write each one but I'd love to see some kind of guidelines or reasons to why you should play x games with y bankroll.

Any discussion would be interestIng/helpful.

Cheers

[jgcblack]

20-30bi for a stake you're comfy with and 40-60bi for a brand new one..

[KarmaDope]

Whatever you feel comfortable with.

Live

Let's say you have the following bankrolls what games should you be playing and what games should you think about taking shots in,

1) 2k - 50/1 (not worth playing lower)
2) 5k - 1/2 with shots at the odd juicy 2/5 game
3) 10k - Mix of 1/2 and 2/5
4) 50k - 2/5 with any 5/10 games you can find
6) 100k - anything up to 10/20

Online

1) 200 - 5NL
2) 700 - 25NL
3) 3k - 50NL with the odd 100NL shot
4) 10k - 200NL
5) 40k - 400NL
6) 100k - Anything up to 2kNL

Will go into more detail tomorrow (work in the morning) but these would be my basic guidelines...

[Honeybadger]

When I was grinding online properly I liked to keep 100 BIs in my online account. This was not my full bankroll (I also had a roll for live play) but I treated it as if it was. There is a great feeling of comfort knowing that you are massively 'over-rolled' for a particular stake, it helps you cope with the downswings so much better.

Obviously I rather regretted this policy when I woke up one day to the news that Full Tilt had gone under!

[jgcblack]

It must feel like an absolute age I between stakes if U play with 100bi's...?

[pleno1]

Thanks sharplea, looking forward to you expanding.

[JustinSayne]

I think it makes a huge difference if this is your sole income or you also have a job on the side.

Obv for the 50k+ rolls it isn't relevant. Since your risk of ruin with a 50k+ roll is really high. It will be super hard for you to grind back to 50k if you ever 'busted'

For example if you had a 10k roll you should 100% be taking shots at soft 400nl games at any opportunity and grinding 200nl as your main game. I would suggest 40-50bi BRM and take shots when you have 25-30BI for soft games.

Willingness to move down is also huge factor. If you adopt the BRM above then you need to be prepared to quickly move down limits if your shots go badly. Just cause you 'played some Xnl ' doesn't make it your home.

As for a professional player I think in todays games even 100bi is not enough. Or at least 'on its own'.  What I mean by this is living out of your bank roll is pretty unhealthy. In a ideal world having 50bi 'online' and another 50 or so in Moneybookers or similar. Then having 3 months minimum in living expenses set aside somewhere so if it all goes pear shaped I am not eating beans on toast in a card board box.

Even the way you 'pay' yourself as a pro. Instead of saying "ah sick we had a 50bi month, lucky me I can go splurge 10k" instead just cash out a fixed amount every month (15BI for example) regardless of a winning or losing month and adjust your stakes accordingly



As for the live game rolls. I think anything above 30bi BRM for live games that are notoriously joke soft is very nitty and you are crippling your (allready low relative to stakes) hourly by doing so.

[scotty77]

The bigger the better. 

For the games the I grind regularly I have a 'roll' running into the thousands of BIs.  I take shots at big games when there is the value but even then its only cos I have a 60BI+ roll at that level.

I am a massive BR nit tho and just consider myself very very fortunate to make a living out of this game and have no real desire to just move up to the highest stakes to crush and crush.

[cambridgealex]

wow super thin ryan?! thousands of BIs? dont u play 100/200nl as yr regular game?

I'm similar to you in the point you give at the end - no massive desire to become the best in the world or play the highest stakes. I'm play overrolled too but I use my roll for staking too so I need to be.

[scotty77]

wow super thin ryan?! thousands of BIs? dont u play 100/200nl as yr regular game?

I'm similar to you in the point you give at the end - no massive desire to become the best in the world or play the highest stakes. I'm play overrolled too but I use my roll for staking too so I need to be.

50/100/200nl will be what I'm grinding on a daily basis.  Obviously I doubt if I went on a big downswing I could handle it and would prob nit it up and quit the game with a large amount of it intact so is it really a roll?  

Keep 100BIs online on Sky and never need to deposit.  Obv punt on Stars and other sites to do my balls on tournies.

I think the main reason I'm super nitty and happy just grinding it slow and steady is that around 2 years ago I had a total net worth of 27 pounds.  I was under it in an epic scale and never ever want to even come close to that kind of scenario ever again.

[cambridgealex]

Cool, ty.

Gl with the diary.

[SuuPRlim]

Bankroll Management doesn't have a set "rule" it is almost entirely down to the individuals aptitude for risk, and their temperament in the face of downswings.

Scotty given us a good example (leaping to comclusions here as we don't really "know" each other so if im way off the mark then I apologize) but you seem like the type of person who decently risk-adverse, and the security of not going on a life-style/bankroll crippling downswing is way more important or valuable than benefits of going on a mad heater. Abso nothing wrong with that it's just how people are programmed, or how their circumstances force them to be.

Me and Stu spoken about this often, our views are different but our opinions don't conflict, for me the downside of a poorly executed punt is I have less money, I can buy less things, go on less holidays, have to play smaller stakes - hardly what you'd call particularly "risky" - for Stu the potential repercussions are that his family could be affected negatively, obviously there is no way he can possibly risk that under nearly any circumstances.

For me personally, I don't really have a "x-buyin" rule, I just keep a rough idea in my head of what money I have and where and play on accordingly, my situation might be rarer because I frequently have a high % of my net worth non liquid, but I always try to have all my money "working" all the time. I know what level of liquidity roughly is needed for me to sustain the utility of my bankroll, if I have liquid money much higher than that I'll make an effort to do something with it, punt in bigger games, buy pieces, move money into my business, if I go much below that then I'd be pretty vigilant not to play too high and try grind lower for a period, or look to free up some money somewhere.

People talk about their hourly rates, I think there is nothing worse for your hourly rate than having £50k sat in a bank account.

It will be super hard for you to grind back to 50k if you ever 'busted'

You say this ....

[SuuPRlim]

I'll try play the game anyways

Live

1) 2k £1/£2
2) 5k £1/£2
3) 10k £1/£2
4) 50k £5/£10
6) 100k £10/£25

Online

1) 200 $0.50/$1
2) 700 $0.50/$1
3) 3k $0.50/$1
4) 10k $1/$2 - $2/$4
5) 40k $2/$4 - $5/$10
6) 100k $2/$4 - $10/$20

Shot taking, imo should be judged on the utility value of the additional money, for example, you play $2/$4 PLO, and you have a $25k bankroll, you go on a bit of a heater, take some money out for yourself and have a working $32k bankroll, you know you're very comfortable grinding off a $25k BR, and don't really need the money too much, so take the $7k and punt at 5/10 and 10/20, set yourself a $7k stop loss for the shot, if goes well you might spin up $20k and make a considerable difference to your BR, it goes badly, you do the extra 7k, you're still fine.

As for withdrawing, I usually try to operate a system where I don't withdraw winnings, just rakeback. If I had more money than i wanted online (which never happens cos I have to always send to horses/paying people for stars money etc lol) then I'd often just leave it in moneybookers cos it's pretty tilt uploading money to there.

[jakally]

I think traditionally, it is common for poker players to be too inflexible with regards to bankroll management, and playing levels.
There is also an obsession with moving up levels. I think this is fine when your playing level is micro stakes, and earning potential is relatively insignificant, but less important once $0.50/$1, $1/$2 is our playing level.

Approach to bankroll management is very dependent on whether we can access more funds if we get short / go broke. Ok to be more aggressive if we can, but if it is main source of income, and that income stream disappears if we go broke, then need to be way more conservative.

It's sensible to have a blind level which you consider your 'home' (e.g. $1/$2), and to have plenty enough buy-ins to avoid the risk of going broke too easily (absolute minimum of 100 for online IMO), but outside of that, be prepared to play different games / levels both to help development, and to find value.

I think the top 15 - 20% of your roll should always be open to use for punts / shot taking, preferably when we are doing ok in our core games, and a losing punt won't see us having to move down, or play short rolled.

Live, I think it's ok to play shorter than 100 BI's, given that the games are usually easier to beat / less swingy, but it's important to be realistic when we are saying what a buy in is. (i.e. don't try and count 100 BB's as a BI automatically).
If we are buying in for £600 @ £1/£2, and there are at least a few players on the table that cover, then that is a buy in.
I think 50 BI's is a sensible level for core game, with the same mentality of using 15 - 20% of roll for punting.

[tikay]

"....have no real desire to just move up to the highest stakes to crush and crush....."

"....no massive desire to ....... play the highest stakes...."

"...There is also an obsession with moving up levels...."


It's really good to see that line of thinking, in my personal opinion.

It appears to be the poker equivalent of the "Peter Principle", which, in life, is well proven.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle