Originally Posted by pokerlearner

i was at my local B&M casino last night and saw the latest CARD PLAYER magazine (the one which has Allen Cunningham in cover).

it has a very nice article on bankroll management. If you get the chance to read it please do so.

I dont remember all of it but the author proved using some logic, maths etc that the bankroll requirement of 300 BB is mostly for live games. For internet games he argued that a player needs MORE than 300 bb.

Since i dont want to misquote, you would be better off reading the article.

enjoy

Originally Posted by pokerlearner

yep thats the article. Thanks Demi for linking it. I am so lazy.

Dont you think though that your edge is higher against live players than online players because of few reads. But then again, you cant use poker tracker live but online you have a good statistical analysis on opponents plays

Originally Posted by iopq

BULLSHIT. I play two tables and I'm bored out of my mind so I read FTR. I pay NO extra attention than I need to when playing one table. I read FTR longer.

Also, he says a wild player might need 50% larger BR than a solid player. Again, WRONG. It's a barely noticable difference. Remember, we're talking about winning players. So the difference in hands seen should be maybe 15% between a solid player and an aggressive player. More than 30% VPIP just cannot be profitable in a full game. You would expect a tight player to have at least 15% VPIP and 10% PFR. So, OK, give the aggro 15% higher BR reqs, NOT 50%. You just can't get your variance that much higher...

Add the fact that good aggro players like Fnord have amazing win rates...

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

IOPQ isn't that far off. You dont need a 50% larger BR to be a laggy player, but you might if you play in laggy games. Both of which will increase your variance, but not so much as to require a 50 % increase.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

I'm pretty much advocating a 500 BB bankroll for limits upwards and including 3/6 6 max. Maybe not in your poker account, but at least have it available (because sometimes have $20k in your poker account not collecting at least some interest is retarded).

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

You have your classifications wrong here. You are comparing aggressive and tight when you should only be comparing aggressive/passive or tight/loose or opposing combinations of the like. And, when you assume both are good, winning players, theres really only 1-2 types they can be.

Originally Posted by Demiparadigm

I spent a lot of time trying to explain it, It would be nice if some people took a little bit of time to understand it.

Originally Posted by Demiparadigm

Again, just like Roy Cooke, his points are valid, but his math and his reasoning are wrong.
Bankroll requirements are a function of winrate and standard deviation, not the %hands played. Playing more hands will increase your standard deviation, but there is no direct correlation between hands played and bankroll requirements.

Originally Posted by iopq

You would expect a tight player to have at least 15% VPIP and 10% PFR. So, OK, give the aggro 15% higher BR reqs, NOT 50%.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

Frankly, its not worth my time because most people know what limit is outside their bankroll, and, if they dont, then they shouldn't be playing at the level they are at anyway.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

In LHE, anyone who plays more than 30% of their hands is a guaranteed loser (in a full ring table), they may just not know it yet.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

Also incorrect. In LHE, anyone who plays more than 30% of their hands is a guaranteed loser (in a full ring table), they may just not know it yet. The DERB (Doesn't ever run bad) thread on 2+2 are based on a guy that plays in between 25 and 30 VPIP.

Originally Posted by Nehmer

I disagree with you strongly here. I know I could beat the .5/1, 1/2, and probably 2/4, 3/6 tables on party running a VPIP of 30+. Hell, I might even be able to beat the .5/1 and 1/2 tables for more than I could with a VPIP of 15-20. If you can definately outplay your opponents postflop, there is nothing at all wrong with adding in some extra hands preflop. At higher limits like the 15/30-50/100 online games, you will probably have a VERY hard time finding a table where you could outplay everybody that much postflop(no matter how good of a player you are), but if you made sure to only play those limits at the very best of tables, I think it would definately be possible to be a long term winning player with a VPIP of 30+ in the long run. Even not at the best of tables, if you were good enough at figuring out how to take advantage of peoples views of you due to your Pokertracker stats looking bad with a high VPIP, you could probably beat the games pretty soundly.

Originally Posted by elipsesjeff

You have it backwards, you are more likely to win more with loose play at the higher levels because the playerspay more attention to you, and thus it will have more effect on your metagame. You give up TOO much preflop leakage playing 30% vpip than you could make up post flop. Every 5 percent you add to your vpip, you have to win 2.5 BB/100 MORE just to break even, if not more than that.

Originally Posted by astrodon

87s has 15% expectation for winning at a full nine player table for 2 card starting hands; roughly 1 in 6.666... times. Or 5.67:1 odds. (so is T7s) UTG how can you be sure 6 (or more) will follow everytime? Is this a 'rule of thumb' for $0.5/$1 that 6 of 9 players ALLWAYS see the flop? Just did a quick check at PS under plys/flop: it ranged from 26% to 71% @ $.05/$1 in all tables listed. But in the full tables the range was 26% to 38%.