|
rowhousepd
|
06-21-2010, 04:17 AM
Post subject: Do you need seperate bankrolls for cash & tourneys?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 213
|
|
I think get how bankrolls work in general, why they're important, how it protects against variance, etc. But I can't seem to find an answer on the forums about whether your bankroll needs to be the sum of both cash games limits as well as tourneys.
Wait, that sounded confusing.... If the general rule of thumb in No Limit is that you need at a bare minimum 20 max buy-ins for cash games and at least 40 buy-ins for SnGs, do you need the sum of both if you play both kinds of games? Is your total bankroll essentially 2 separate BRs?
Let's say I had a $1000 BR. If I was only a cash player, I shouldn't play any higher than $5NL. Likewise if I only played SnGs, I shouldn't buy-in for any tourney over $25. But what if I played both fairly regularly? Would I in fact need to have $2000 to justify playing at those limits? (Or in other words, would I really need to be playing at half those limits w/ $1000 in the bank?)
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
Only need one bankroll. I recommend 200 buyins for tournies and 100 buy-ins for sngs/cash games.
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
No, you don't need two different bankrolls. If you had say $200 and wanted to play 20 BIs for cash that means you're playing 10nl, and if you wanted to play 40 BIs for sngs then you'd e playing $5 games or whatever the equivalent is with the rake there, you get the point.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
amifat
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 92
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowhousepd
I think get how bankrolls work in general, why they're important, how it protects against variance, etc. But I can't seem to find an answer on the forums about whether your bankroll needs to be the sum of both cash games limits as well as tourneys.
Wait, that sounded confusing.... If the general rule of thumb in No Limit is that you need at a bare minimum 20 max buy-ins for cash games and at least 40 buy-ins for SnGs, do you need the sum of both if you play both kinds of games? Is your total bankroll essentially 2 separate BRs?
Let's say I had a $1000 BR. If I was only a cash player, I shouldn't play any higher than $50NL. Likewise if I only played SnGs, I shouldn't buy-in for any tourney over $25. But what if I played both fairly regularly? Would I in fact need to have $2000 to justify playing at those limits? (Or in other words, would I really need to be playing at half those limits w/ $1000 in the bank?)
|
FYP
Tournaments including Single and MTT's are might higher varience where you need to push small edges to be a consitant winner. So realistically you should have a much bigger pillow just incase you fall on your ass.
+1 with outlaws post, Adopt a stop loss and don't be affraid to move down if your bankroll can't sustain / you mentally (tilt) can't sustain lossing over a short term.
|
♦♣♥♠ "Common sence isn't really that common" ♦♣♥♠
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
I actually am finding out that stop losses are a pretty bad idea. Its much better to have "tilting stops" where you recognize that you are not playing your A-game and stop playing then. This could be when you are 10 buy-ins up for the session or 10 buy-ins down. If you know you are playing your A game or at least your B+ game, there is no reason to ever cut a session short. That is always -ev.
|
|
|
|
Micro2Macro
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: http://three-pair.com/
Posts: 4,463
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw
I actually am finding out that stop losses are a pretty bad idea. Its much better to have "tilting stops" where you recognize that you are not playing your A-game and stop playing then. This could be when you are 10 buy-ins up for the session or 10 buy-ins down. If you know you are playing your A game or at least your B+ game, there is no reason to ever cut a session short. That is always -ev.
|
well said
|
"Once we reach a certain level of mastery, we see there are higher levels and challenges. If we are disciplined and patient, we proceed. At each higher level, new pleasures and insights await us--ones not even suspected when we started out. We can take this as far as we want--in any human activity there is always a higher level to which we can aspire."
Check out my blog here!
"You are a degenerate Gaam-balur"
http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/
|
|
rpm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: learnin'
Posts: 2,039
|
|
yeah dollar-based stop losses are silly. they're essentially saying "i'm too tilted to keep playing because i've lost $X already", so they are really "tilting stops" in a way. it's just seems some people treat them in a semi-superstitious way ie "i have to stop playing after i lose 4 buyins or else i'm gonna keep losing". only if you are tilted. nice post, outlaw.
|
|
|
|
amifat
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 92
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw
I actually am finding out that stop losses are a pretty bad idea. Its much better to have "tilting stops" where you recognize that you are not playing your A-game and stop playing then. This could be when you are 10 buy-ins up for the session or 10 buy-ins down. If you know you are playing your A game or at least your B+ game, there is no reason to ever cut a session short. That is always -ev.
|
I was thinking this was more a generalization, usually new players think losing money in the short term might be bad when it might be +EV and when they look at the monetary results, they start spewing off more.
Tilting stops sounds better however.
|
♦♣♥♠ "Common sence isn't really that common" ♦♣♥♠
|
|
rowhousepd
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 213
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
No, you don't need two different bankrolls. If you had say $200 and wanted to play 20 BIs for cash that means you're playing 10nl, and if you wanted to play 40 BIs for sngs then you'd e playing $5 games.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw
Only need one bankroll. I recommend 200 buyins for tournies and 100 buy-ins for sngs/cash games.
|
Spoonitnow & Outlaw: These are really different #'s. As I mentioned, I've generally been reading 20x BI for cash and 40x for tourneys. (Though I realize these are rough guidelines are represent only the bare minimum.) Anyone reading this thread think one way or the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amifat
Tournaments including Single and MTT's are might higher varience where you need to push small edges to be a consitant winner.
|
OK, so when people say your SnG requirements should be ~ 40x BI, are they just talking about single table SnGs or all SnGs? I mean, do you need the same BR strategy when you're playing 8 other opponents where you'd be ITM 33% of the time as you would when you're playing, say, 5,000 players and only be significantly ITM at the top 5%? Seems like there'd be a distinction. Confused about that. 
Anyhow, I think the biggest thing I'm going to try to keep in mind is to just move up when I start beating the limits in that particular type of game -- whether that's the cash buy-in or tourney buy-ins, separately. So essentially I'm going to track them separately.
I've got a few criteria I'm setting up for myself for moving up in cash games. Tell me what you think....1. Go up a level if my BR well exceeds 20x max buy-in, and move down is it's less than 20x.
2. Don't go up unless I've won at least 500BB at that limit.
3. Play for at least 100 hrs (total hrs, meaning multitabling counts cumulatively towards your hrs) at the current level before moving up.
4. Play a minimum of 10k hands.
5. My win rate needs to be at least 3 BB/100 or better. Too conservative? I don't think It's too unreasonable. Chances are if have one criterion accomplished, I'm good in the others. Right now I'd definitely rather be safe since I'm still relatively new to online play.
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
I just used 20 BIs for my example because the numbers are even and easy to use. For cash games it is the absolute minimum I'd suggest for anyone, while I think something in the neighborhood of 30 BIs is sufficient at micro-stakes cash for recreational players. As for tournaments, I'm not sure, but I know it should be much higher in terms of number of buy-ins.
If you want a good set of rules for moving up, I'd suggest at 2nl-10nl being at least 4 ptbb/100 over 50k hands, at 25nl being 3 ptbb/100 over 50k hands, and at 50nl being 2 ptbb/100 over at least 50k hands before considering moving up. As you play higher stakes, you should also keep a deeper bankroll in terms of the number of buy-ins. This is because your edge is going to be lower relative to the stakes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
Outlaw
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
|
I'd get in the habit now of having very nitty BR management requirements. Skill will increase a lot slower than BR, its much better to have the extra time spent growing as a player so that when you do attain the right BR to move up, you are more ready. We also don't want to have to ever move down do we? It sucks.. trust me.
Now if you are an already proven winner at a higher stake and are just rebuilding a BR, now that's a different matter. You can definitely take shortcuts on getting back to the stake you want.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
