|
RevolverX
|
05-21-2006, 10:03 PM
Post subject: Recommended BR for 25 NL?
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 112
|
|
This appiles to poker stars. I've moved up to 10 NL 10max, it's exactly the same as 5 NL, except my winnings and swings are twice as much now, but overall my BR is increasing. Currently it's at $200, and I know 10x buyin ($250) is recommended for 25 NL, but on poker stars, the players are much better, and I know playing super tight isn't going to work like it does at 10 NL (so I'll have a new learning curve)....... how much of a BR should I grind to before moving up on stars?
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Actually, 20x the buyin is recommended, so $500. This is a general rule of thumb to catch all those adjustment problems and downswings and all that.
It's only if a stake is easy for you, that you should lower them. For me, as an example, at 10NL I go with $100 (10x) and 20NL $360 (18x).
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
When I started playing, the rule was 15x buyin. So, $375. I don't see any reason why this should have changed. This is, of course, assuming you are a winning player,
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Ive always heard 20 buyins and thats what I have followed, $500 for 25nl and $1000 for 50nl. At pokerstars the players really arent that much better than at other sites. Can you find worse? Yes, but at the lowest limits there isnt a huge difference. I really think its best to follow 20 buyins, it lets you build a more solid base at the lower levels and makes the move up much easier.
|
|
|
|
flotu
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 304
|
|
At the lower limits a big bankroll isn't as important as at the higher limits since you can easily get the money to replace the lost roll. I recommend 20 buyins if you really don't want to lose the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flotu
At the lower limits a big bankroll isn't as important as at the higher limits since you can easily get the money to replace the lost roll. I recommend 20 buyins if you really don't want to lose the whole thing.
|
If you can easily get the money to replace the lost roll then you are playing with a bigger roll than what you have on the site. If you have 10 buyins on the site but will add another 10 if you go broke then your BR is 20 buyins.
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andy-akb
If you can easily get the money to replace the lost roll then you are playing with a bigger roll than what you have on the site. If you have 10 buyins on the site but will add another 10 if you go broke then your BR is 20 buyins.
|
Should you go broke, will you stop playing poker forever? If not, what is your real BR? Infinite?
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jackvance
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andy-akb
If you can easily get the money to replace the lost roll then you are playing with a bigger roll than what you have on the site. If you have 10 buyins on the site but will add another 10 if you go broke then your BR is 20 buyins.
|
Should you go broke, will you stop playing poker forever? If not, what is your real BR? Infinite? |
Lets talk using rhetorical questions, thats always fun.
Is your bankroll only what you have online? If you are willing to lose 20 buyins, isnt your bankroll 20 buyins?
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Those were not rhetorical questions. They were genuine questions to illustrate a point.
I currently have $260 online. I don't have money in my account. In fact, I cashed out on saturday to replenish my account because it had gone way negative from some purchases. But if I go broke, I won't stop playing poker. So what is my "real" bankroll? Who knows. Should I go broke, I can pursue some other venues for money probably.. but do I have to take this money that I "might get" into consideration for my roll?
That's why I think your BR is solemny the money you have online. And that's why I agree with flotu. If you go broke at the lower limits, you can probably scrape some money together from here and there and get rolled again and play again.
I mean, if you go calculate all the money you "might put in your roll if you go bust", then there is really no end to it probably. It would also make a statement like "I lost half my roll" or "I blew my entire bankroll" futile.
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jackvance
Those were not rhetorical questions. They were genuine questions to illustrate a point.
|
A rhetorical question is one used for persuasive effect, ie. to illustrate a point.
Quote:
I currently have $260 online. I don't have money in my account. In fact, I cashed out on saturday to replenish my account because it had gone way negative from some purchases. But if I go broke, I won't stop playing poker. So what is my "real" bankroll? Who knows. Should I go broke, I can pursue some other venues for money probably.. but do I have to take this money that I "might get" into consideration for my roll?
That's why I think your BR is solemny the money you have online. And that's why I agree with flotu. If you go broke at the lower limits, you can probably scrape some money together from here and there and get rolled again and play again.
I mean, if you go calculate all the money you "might put in your roll if you go bust", then there is really no end to it probably. It would also make a statement like "I lost half my roll" or "I blew my entire bankroll" futile.
|
Now we are just arguing the definition of a bankroll. Personally, I would hope there would be an end to how much I would add to my bankroll, if somebody doesnt have a true end to what they are willing to add to their roll then they likely have a gambiling problem. I made one initial deposit to party and have worked off that for about 6 months, I do not plan on ever reloading anywhere because if I follow strict guidelines for BR management it will be impossible to go broke.
If I start off right now with a $200 deposit for $10nl but say I am willing to deposit another $200 if I lose my first deposit, then that is the same as starting with a $400 roll except less beneficial in terms of moving up. Simply because not all of your investment is in your poker account doesnt mean its not part of your roll because it is money that you could lose. Money you cant lose from poker is not part of your BR, money you can lose, is.
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
its possible to go on 10x buyin swings
even at 25nl
even if you don't suck
The reason people recommend 20x is very simple. It is so you can lose a few buyins when adjusting to new stakes.
If you only play with 10 buyins, your money will start to become scared and you will lose the rest.
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
I have had 2 12-buyin downswings and an 8-buyin downswing and I'm a winning player.
Here's a theory. At low levels, it is possible to have an almost infinite bankroll - say you are only losing the rake, but you lose it consistently every month. So you take $100 or whatever out of your paycheck, deposit it, and quite happily continue to play not-quite-breakeven poker.
If this makes no sense, let's say that instead of playing poker, you're playing golf. Every month, you pay your green fees and membership; you're playing for enjoyment rather than money, and you have a lot of fun which is its own reward. You continue playing golf for the rest of your active life. There's nothing that says poker has to be different.
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andy-akb
A rhetorical question is one used for persuasive effect, ie. to illustrate a point.
|
"Why does this always happen to me?" is a rhetorical question. My questions were to elicite a real response.
Quote:
|
Now we are just arguing the definition of a bankroll.
|
Yeah..
Quote:
|
Personally, I would hope there would be an end to how much I would add to my bankroll, if somebody doesnt have a true end to what they are willing to add to their roll then they likely have a gambiling problem.
|
That's not really relevant. All I'm saying is that if you are going to account for money you "might put in your roll if you go bust", where do you draw the line? If you define your BR as that which you have online, it's a lot more clear. Like a guy in the shorthanded forum made a post saying how he blew his entire $300 BR in one day at 25NL. The next day he was playing again, and started to make it all back. Should I be calling him a liar now? I don't think so.. his BR was $300, and when he blew all of that, he tapped into some other funds to create a new bankroll.
There's also a guy who wants to bankroll me for $1k-$2k, but I'd have to split the profits, so I don't really want to do that (not to mention I don't have the confidence to handle that kind of money at this point in time). But I could. Is that part of my BR too? Meh if you just stick to what you have online it's much clearer. Plus they use the term "bankroll" like that in rounders too. What you have, not what you might be able to add.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Personally, if I was starting over, I'd feel more then confident with 10 buyins at NL25 knowing it's a low variance game that I could beat easily. If I didn't have any way of replenishing that money, I'd want at least 20. Assuming that you can beat the game (but not crush it), and that you aren't dependant on the money, I think somewhere in the area of $400-$500 would be good.
FWIW, I'm playing NL400 with upwards of 40 buyins. I want to double my BR (to around 30k or so) before I move up to 3/6.
|
|
|
|
SinkRox
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 624
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lukie
FWIW, I'm playing NL400 with upwards of 40 buyins. I want to double my BR (to around 30k or so) before I move up to 3/6.
|
Why do you want 50 buy-ins? When I move up I like 24 buy-ins for the new level and if I lose 4 I'll quit that level until I have 24 again and repeat until I manage to stay there (this is for FR). But surely you could try moving at 35 or 40 buyins for the new level? 50 just sounds a bit too much to me.
|
|
Experimenting - 200NL 5max.
"They say that dreams are real only as long as they last. Couldn't you say the same thing about life?" Waking life
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,991
|
|
When you get to levels 400nl and higher, its really more about your confidence at playing than it is the size of your bankroll. I am rolled for 400nl and I still play 100nl and 200nl, because I don't think I have a very big edge over the 400nl game yet.
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
Agreed. From my perspective, it's important to have a much more solid bankroll at 400NL+ because if you only have 25 buyins, the consequences of a big downswing at high stakes can be emotionally devastating due to the sheer amount of money that is being lost. I'd never been emotionally affected by a downswing before until I moved up to 200NL. I've had a few -$500 days before and it didn't really get to me, but a week and half ago I dropped six buyins at 200NL and I felt sick to my stomach. The fact that I had made more than twice that in the previous week didn't seem to matter, because I lost 1000 dollars today OMG! had to take a couple of days off from playing at all, and then I moved down to 100NL because my confidence was shot.
Also, while you still occasionally see huge donkeys at high stakes, for the most part the margin between winning players and losing players is a lot smaller so there will naturally be more variance.
|
|
|
|
Setzy
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 399
|
|
I was gonna write a little mini-preach about 25nl, but I'm going to make it short and sweet for you.
If you play only 1 table, 10 buyins will be fine. If you play 2-3, have 12-14. If you play four or more, have 15+ buyins.
|
|
Save your stories 'cuz they're all the same..
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
because there's a few kinks in my armor that need to be repaired
|
|
|
|
midas06
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 2,196
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Setzy
I was gonna write a little mini-preach about 25nl, but I'm going to make it short and sweet for you.
If you play only 1 table, 10 buyins will be fine. If you play 2-3, have 12-14. If you play four or more, have 15+ buyins.
|
This is technically wrong. In practise, if you can't multitable as well as you can one table, then you will need more buyins behind you.
If you can play as well with 4+ tables as you can with 1, then your br management shouldn't change.
Increasing tables doesn't increase variance, it lets you play more hands.
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by midas06
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Setzy
I was gonna write a little mini-preach about 25nl, but I'm going to make it short and sweet for you.
If you play only 1 table, 10 buyins will be fine. If you play 2-3, have 12-14. If you play four or more, have 15+ buyins.
|
This is technically wrong. In practise, if you can't multitable as well as you can one table, then you will need more buyins behind you.
If you can play as well with 4+ tables as you can with 1, then your br management shouldn't change.
Increasing tables doesn't increase variance, it lets you play more hands. |
Ehh, I understand where you are both coming from. If I 8 table as well as I single table[not saying I do, because I dont], there is no way 10 buyins would be enough simply because I want to always have the max buyin at all of my tables. So I think you do need a couple extra buyins if you are multi-tabling. And you are right multitabling decreases variance because you play more hands in a shorter period of time.
|
|
|
|
midas06
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 2,196
|
|
Yes, you would need more behind you in the sense that you would need to have the max at each table.
Also, multitabling doesn't decrease, nor increase variance. It simply increases the number of hands that you play (in practice).
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by midas06
Also, multitabling doesn't decrease, nor increase variance. It simply increases the number of hands that you play (in practice).
|
It does decrease card variance. If you play 8 tables as opposed to 1, you see so much more hands that you average out the odds 8x faster.
The tricky thing however is that "personal variance" as I like to call it, isn't accounted for. If you tilt, or lose confidence, or in whichever way let your game slide - a thing which isn't easily perceptible btw - then you'll be losing money 8x faster.
This is probably why I haven't gone beyond 2 6max tables. I'm already a winning player, but I just don't have a solid game that easily spreads to more tables..
|
|
|
|
bluey
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 347
|
|
Ive dropped 8 buyins in a day before, thats real fun.
|
BR: $.1k
Goal 2: July 1 $10k
IIbeatsUU: lol u raised with that?
you mini raised, therefore you desereve whatever you get....
|
|
Setzy
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 399
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by midas06
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Setzy
I was gonna write a little mini-preach about 25nl, but I'm going to make it short and sweet for you.
If you play only 1 table, 10 buyins will be fine. If you play 2-3, have 12-14. If you play four or more, have 15+ buyins.
|
This is technically wrong. In practise, if you can't multitable as well as you can one table, then you will need more buyins behind you.
If you can play as well with 4+ tables as you can with 1, then your br management shouldn't change.
Increasing tables doesn't increase variance, it lets you play more hands. |
I am assuming this guy is able to play at the same level with whatever amount of tables he desires. Really the BR requirements in my post don't change, it's basically one more for each table you play.
You shouldn't play so many tables that you need more buyins because of your skill (or lack thereof)...if that is the case then you need to play fewer tables.
|
|
Save your stories 'cuz they're all the same..
|
|
DickieBets
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ontario
Posts: 69
|
|
If you don't want to wait for the standard bankroll, something you could try is set yourself a lower cutoff such as $150.00 and if you fall below it drop back down to $10NL.
Another idea is to set yourself a goal at $10NL such as 15 BB/100 hands for 5000 hands - once you reach it, move up - and implement the lower cutoff again.
Currently I have the bankroll for 25NL (thanks to SitnGos) and have dabbled in 25NL, but feel that if I can't sustain a decent BB/100 hands in 10 NL then I shouldn't move up. But that's just me - I'm fairly conservative.
Martin
|
|
|
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
