|
alias2211
|
08-10-2006, 07:03 PM
Post subject: alias2211's suggested bankroll schedule
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U, S and A!!!
Posts: 469
|
|
hey all-
this past year i have been teaching my younger brothers how to play NLHE, and for as good as they are getting, the number one issue that prevents them from attaining higher games is poor bankroll management. they'll get on a heater, think they're hot shit and then play out of their BR only to get knocked way down and have to grind it up once again. it's frustrating for me to see them do this to themselves, because i think they could be playing bigger games sooner than later (skillwise). but they never wait long enough to take into account the swings, which are even worse in shorthanded games. so i created this bankroll schedule for them to try to follow and thought i would share it with everyone here as well.
Phase 1: SNGs
# Buyins Game Buyin Rake Bankroll Amt.
20 $5 SNG $5 $0.50 $110.00
20 $10 SNG $10 $1 $220
20 $20 SNG $20 $2 $440
20 $30 SNG $30 $3 $660
25 $50 SNG $50 $5 $1,100
Final SNG goal: $2,000
Phase 2: Cash Games
# Buyins Level Buyin Rake Bankroll Amt.
20 $100nl $100 varies $2,000
20 $200nl $200 varies $4,000
24 $400nl $400 varies $9,600
30 $600nl $600 varies $18,000
40 $1000nl $1,000 varies $40,000
NOTES:
- i split this into two phases for two main reasons: 1. SNGs give you a lot more poker time for your dollar than cash games do. that is, even the worst players will last longer at SNGs than comparable cash games because of the way the SNG format limits risk compared to the cash game format. by starting out w/ SNGs you'll give yourself more time to learn how to play properly with less risk. SNGs are the best way to learn and groom your game.
2. most players who rely on poker earnings as a major source of income play cash games as their major source of poker earnings. you can do what you like and play SNGs exclusively forever, but i think most players tend to gravitate towards cash games once they have a decent roll and a decent ability for the game. you can certainly continue to play SNGs, and should do so especially when you think you have an edge. but even after you're at $2k, mixing in the occasional $100 + 9 SNG will still be close to playing within your bankroll.
-when making the transition from SNG to cash games, you can choose to get into cash games once you reach the $1100 mark where you'd be moving up to $50 SNGs, but you have to play $50nl to start out in that case. 20 buyins would be my recommendation for that level as well. if you're itching to get into cash games, then 50nl might be ok for you to start. however, i would wait until you hit $2k as a way to prove to yourself that you can always move back to grinding SNGs if you ever need to take your bankroll out for emergency reasons.
-multitabling can put additional pressure on your BR buyin numbers. take that into consideration, but it's something you have to find for yourself in your own comfort zone. this schedule should be fine for up to 2 tables at a time. if you're at 4 tables, you may consider adding 20% to your overall buyins for your given level. if you go 8 or more, 25-30% increase might not be a bad idea. it's really up to you to decide, as long as you don't start playing weak because of over exposing/stretching yourself, it will be fine.
-once you start playing primarily cash games, if you don't get rakeback i will kill you or poker will, whichever gets their hands on you first. rakeback is even more important at low stakes cash games than it is at high stakes. this is because the ratio of rake paid : earnings is much higher than it is in high stakes cash games. at $1000nl i can make about $2k a month by playing ~1000 hands/day, or about 5% of my suggested bankroll amount for that level, meh. at that level, the real value is in playing winning poker. for $100nl, you can make about $750 a month by playing the same amount of hands, which is approximately 35% of your BR. in other words, you can play break even poker at $100nl for 3 months and move up to the next level, according to BR rules suggested here anyway (your skill might still need some work at this point, so keep that in mind before considering a move up). rakeback is probably the single most important factor in building a roll from low limit to a high limit capacity, aside from not sucking.
-BR management isn't only about moving up, it's also about moving down. let's say you make it to the $200nl games after a lot of hard work, then hit a cooler run of awful cards. if you're relatively new to poker, i would suggest that as soon as you drop below that $4000 mark, you step back down to $100nl. yes that is almost 40 buyins, but if you have never been through a swing before, it's one of the easiest ways you can tilt your entire roll off. if you have been playing or awhile or don't need the money as badly (i.e. poker money is just for entertainment), you could keep trying $200nl. but for the love of god, once you hit that next level's minimum you absolutely HAVE to move back down. i'll give you some leeway here as to when you decide to move back down to $100nl anywhere between $2000 and $4000 range endpoints, but i won't budge on that bottom line. some of you might have seen some of my downswing graphs on other posts before as examples of this, but its not unheard of to lose 10-15 buyins in a stretch before things start to look up again. i have experience several of these at this point in my poker career and the best way to combat them is taking a step back. if you play $200nl w/ only $2000 you expose yourself to potentially losing your entire roll just due to a small run of bad cards/situations.
-this is not the end all be all of bankroll management advice. as you move up in stakes and BR levels, it becomes more complex than what i could attempt to address in a single post. additionally, you have to consider your risk tolerance in a general way and make adjustments, too. you might want to add 10 buyins to every level, but i think the above table is a good basis for minimum amounts. but that is up for you to decide, all i'm doing here is providing you with a way that prevents you from losing everything because of short term variance or tilt. when you start thinking of reasons why this schedule is good or not good, that is when you can start modifying it to fit your own needs. but until you can come up w/ those ideas, through experience at the tables, strengthened by solid reasoning, stick to these rules.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
bode
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Location: slow motion
Posts: 4,270
|
|
goot post. im in the process of grinding up to $1000 playing SnG's, and then i will most likely give ring a shot and see which i want to continue with.
|
Quote:
|
eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
|
|
|
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 would not suggest an SNG player with $2000 jumps straight into playing cash games at $100NL. It's a very different discipline and the shifts in tactics required mean that for a few thousand hands at least they should play at, and consistently win at, $25NL before moving to $50 or $100 (where they'll then have a better cushioned BR).
Of course, they may already be very capable cash players, but if you take your schedule baldly and perhaps out of this particular context, I think it needs a period of transfer at lower stakes to cope with the adjustment.
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
I definitely agree, especially if you're moving from full ring SNG's to 6-max ring games. Bankroll management guides seem kind of silly to me because so much depends on how big of a winner you are. If you're crushing a game for 10+ BB/100 then you can almost make do with 10 buyins. But if you're not a proven winner in a game then it's dangerous to read some guide that says you're fine with 20 buyins and then jump right in.
|
|
|
|
Irisheyes
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: over there
Posts: 3,708
|
|
Ya good post. I was trying to teach my bro for ages and like yours he has no concept of BR management and thinks he is Gods gift to poker. I've given up.
|
|
|
|
alias2211
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U, S and A!!!
Posts: 469
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
I would not suggest an SNG player with $2000 jumps straight into playing cash games at $100NL. It's a very different discipline and the shifts in tactics required mean that for a few thousand hands at least they should play at, and consistently win at, $25NL before moving to $50 or $100 (where they'll then have a better cushioned BR).
Of course, they may already be very capable cash players, but if you take your schedule baldly and perhaps out of this particular context, I think it needs a period of transfer at lower stakes to cope with the adjustment.
|
if you are successful at SNGs you will be better equipped to tackle cash games than just starting there cold. new players should feel free to start/drop down to $25nl or $50nl, but from a purely financial perspective, they are properly rolled to play $100nl. if there is any trouble in the transition, someone who was able to run $100 into $2k on SNGs is more likely to rebuild on SNGs than on lower limit cash games. i can see how a player would probably go back and forth between SNGs and cash games a couple of times before they feel like they've transitioned enough to be comfortable at cash games.
|
|
|
|
alias2211
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U, S and A!!!
Posts: 469
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I definitely agree, especially if you're moving from full ring SNG's to 6-max ring games. Bankroll management guides seem kind of silly to me because so much depends on how big of a winner you are. If you're crushing a game for 10+ BB/100 then you can almost make do with 10 buyins. But if you're not a proven winner in a game then it's dangerous to read some guide that says you're fine with 20 buyins and then jump right in. |
well you're so much more experienced in poker than some of our newer members so i think your skepticism is good. most new players don't have the benefit of that perspective due to their lack of experience. if i look at my brothers' cases, they're just spinning their friggin wheels because they have no sense of direction whatsoever, so you're way ahead of them in that respect. all they're really doing right now is getting hands in. they have been playing $5-$20 SNGs for 6-8 months now and getting nowhere because of playing outside of BR, and i can tell that they're good enough to be playing tougher games from a skill assessment standpoint. so this guide gives them managable milestones to accomplish, while enabling them to develop a decent bankroll to take a legitimate shot and learning and beating cash games. my final note in the original post is that this isn't The Truth of bankroll management, its just something for newer players to go by until they have good and valid reasons to deviate.
as far as the jumping in comment goes, all i can say is that you'll never know until you try. hardly anyone will ever be playing in the huge games like 2000nl+, most will probably never make it past $400nl. but everyone here owes it to themselves to find out what their ceiling is, the level from which they can expect the biggest relative gain. Once they find that sweet spot, they should play that level without exposing themselves to short term variance that could break them. if they can do that, they'll be a profitable player in the long run. mathematical probability doesn't care about skill whatsoever. 10 buyin swings can and will happen. i promise.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Alias, I don't disagree with you per se, but I do think you have to regard Cash and SNG games as genuinely different forms of the same game. People who have succeeded at $50 SNG level are clearly decent players of poker, but so are $2/4 7 card stud players and you wouldn't expect them to own NL hold'em at a level much above the beginner stakes.
There is so much that needs considering in a different way in cash games - the use of the all-in, the rationale concerning small edges, when to play drawing hands, how to control pot sizes, the role of implied odds etc - that I would fear for any SNG player who jumped straight into $100NL, regardless of their BR. There's no point in playing $100 with 20 buyins if you're going to be a losing player for the first 10,000 hands while you come to terms with the nuances of the game!
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alias2211
if you are successful at SNGs you will be better equipped to tackle cash games than just starting there cold. new players should feel free to start/drop down to $25nl or $50nl, but from a purely financial perspective, they are properly rolled to play $100nl. if there is any trouble in the transition, someone who was able to run $100 into $2k on SNGs is more likely to rebuild on SNGs than on lower limit cash games. i can see how a player would probably go back and forth between SNGs and cash games a couple of times before they feel like they've transitioned enough to be comfortable at cash games.
|
There are huge differences between tournies and cash games and Id be me comfortable seeing a cash game player jump to the "comparable" level of SNGs then the other way around. Am I saying they would be bad? Of course not, but the skills required for the two are different and putting them right into $100nl is asking for them to drop a bunch of buyins right off the bat. $50nl for your system would be a good entering point to start out at and the put in maybe 10k hands to get used to the different structure and then move up if they are winning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I definitely agree, especially if you're moving from full ring SNG's to 6-max ring games. Bankroll management guides seem kind of silly to me because so much depends on how big of a winner you are. If you're crushing a game for 10+ BB/100 then you can almost make do with 10 buyins. But if you're not a proven winner in a game then it's dangerous to read some guide that says you're fine with 20 buyins and then jump right in. |
At the lower stakes, 20 buyins should always be enough no matter how bad you are [b]as long as you move down if you run/play bad[b] I personally dont think br requirements are as important as long as you know when you have to move down. What matters more, IMO, is how mentally comfortable you are at the stakes with your current BR. It may be "safe" for me to play higher than I am right now with less buyins because I know I can beat the games, but mentally I couldnt handle the swings on a smaller BR. So I agree with what you are saying but think a lot of it also has to do with knowing when to move down and being able to mentally handle the stakes you are at.
|
|
|
|
Rockymv
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andy-akb
I personally dont think br requirements are as important as long as you know when you have to move down.
|
Agreed. Nothing wrong with taking shots so long as it doesn't get out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Miffed22001
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Marry Me Cheryl!!!
Posts: 8,181
|
|
sngs are for fish.
The rest im betting is fine however i use 25buys for 100nl (i hate this but im so swingy) and increase by 5buys per stake.
|
|
|
|
alias2211
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U, S and A!!!
Posts: 469
|
|
wow thanks for all the feedback! i'll consider all of these ideas this weekend and try to update my original post to reflect some of these good ideas. remember, we're not trying to write a prescription for newer players to become a baller over a specified number of hands. we're trying to help ease them through the transition from being your typical microlimit n00b into a player that understands the responsibilities of effective bankroll management techniques.
all of these ideas make me want to try to actually follow this collective advice myself, i might just try it 
|
|
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,992
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
Bankroll management guides seem kind of silly to me because so much depends on how big of a winner you are.
|
How big of a winner you are should be the decision of whether you play with 20x buyins or 50x. 10x should never even be in the equation.
|
|
|
|
mcatdog
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,654
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renton
How big of a winner you are should be the decision of whether you play with 20x buyins or 50x. 10x should never even be in the equation.
|
I disagree. Frequently playing stakes you're not ready for on a 50X bankroll is much worse than playing stakes you crush on a 10X bankroll. It might be less likely to make you go bust, but I don't understand the mentality that it's all right to lose a bunch of buyins playing in a bad game for you, as long as you don't go bust. If my bankroll got destroyed due to unforeseen expenses or taxes or whatever, I would easily rebuild at 25NL on a $250 bankroll and I think I would have very little chance of going bust and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
I've only skimmed through the original post very quickly since I'm about to get something to eat, but here are my comments thus far:
1) I wouldn't recommend anyone jumping into NL100 with a 2k roll with on experience at NL ring.
2) IMO more buyins are needed for -every- level. The implied experience of the players in question definately influences this.
|
|
|
|
jackvance
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,910
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I disagree. Frequently playing stakes you're not ready for on a 50X bankroll is much worse than playing stakes you crush on a 10X bankroll. It might be less likely to make you go bust, but I don't understand the mentality that it's all right to lose a bunch of buyins playing in a bad game for you, as long as you don't go bust. If my bankroll got destroyed due to unforeseen expenses or taxes or whatever, I would easily rebuild at 25NL on a $250 bankroll and I think I would have very little chance of going bust and I'm sure you wouldn't either.
|
Agreed. For example 10NL, 20NL, 25NL, if you have some comfort there 10 buy-ins is plenty. I've done this time and again because of my previous constant needs for cashing out. This probably doesn't fly at higher limits though and it I think gets only worse the higher you go. Like 40 buyins minimum for 1000NL even if you have experience there.. just imho though.
|
|
Sarcasm is your body's natural defense against stupidity
|
|
Renton
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 5,992
|
|
don't cry to me when you go on a 10 buyin downswing, which by the way, occurs even at 25nl, even if you are a good player.
|
|
|
|
andy-akb
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,836
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renton
don't cry to me when you go on a 10 buyin downswing, which by the way, occurs even at 25nl, even if you are a good player.
|
Nobody ever said it couldnt, although it is incredibly unlikely [ill talk about that later], that still doesnt mean you cant play with a 10buyin BR. A BR isnt something that you play with until you bust at 1 level, its what allows you to keep playing poker and be comfortable at your level[s]. If somebody is playing with a 10buyin BR and drops down when they drop X [something like 2-4] buyins can be practicing good management. If you multitable you want a slightly bigger BR, not because of more variance but simply because you have more money in play and want to always be able to reload.
Personally, Im confident I can beat $100nl, Ive watched the games, datamined and looked at the stats, etc. However, I am simply not comfortable with those stakes right now even with a BR right around $2k, so I shouldnt play it. If I knew I could beat the game [and had played the levels below it] and was comfortable playing it with 10 buyins, I would. I wouldnt go much below 10 buyins though simply because short term variance can be very high at short handed tables. If you are comfortable with the money AND know when to move down [probably the most important part], playing with a "short" BR isnt that bad.
There is a certain point where you need to draw the line and start playing with a deeper roll and thats when you start getting into the more aggro higher stakes games [like 200 or $400nl+] or you are playing for a living.
Really though, below 200nl [albeit it something I couldnt stomache], it isnt that horrible.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
The microstakes CAN have a sort of warped bankroll management curve due to the ability to crush the games and do to the money often being easily replenishable.
IE say I cash out my bankroll and buy a BMW. I start over at NL25. I'd be very comfortable playing with 10 buyins and I think I'd have a very little chance of going busto due to my edge on the game. If I did, $250 would be a debit card away.
When you start moving up, neither of these are going to hold true...
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
06-02-2012, 08:10 PM Merge Network 6.0 Looks to Retain Current Player Base
Linear Mode
