All BR In Play

Soz if this has been covered before but I couldn't find any details.

If you want to multi table, is it perfectly ok for you to adhere to BR guidelines for each table yet have a large portion of your roll at stake at the same time?

Simple example: 5% per table across 20 tables = 100% in play.


Thx.

No it's not. BR managment doesn't just exist to average your play over hands. It also exists to average your play over time, taking care of psycological factors that may kick in when you're playing.

Thanks for your contribution Slevin, but you are completely wrong.

Thunder - Playing with your entire roll separated on 20 or so tables is fine. If you are comfortable with the 20BI rule and with 20 tables then it is no different from 2-4 tabling. I personally play 24 FR tables but with 50BI because I am more mentally fit with going broke on 3-4 tables at once.

Thx Dean.

I won't be multi tabling like you any time soon. I currently spaz out like R2D2 when he gets hit by the Tie Fighter if I try more than 3 at any one time.

All figures quoted were just for simple maths. I too would like to try and adhere to the 2% rule.

Originally Posted by Deanglow

Thanks for your contribution Slevin, but you are completely wrong.

Thunder - Playing with your entire roll separated on 20 or so tables is fine. If you are comfortable with the 20BI rule and with 20 tables then it is no different from 2-4 tabling. I personally play 24 FR tables but with 50BI because I am more mentally fit with going broke on 3-4 tables at once.

Actually you are wrong, but good luck.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Originally Posted by Deanglow

Thanks for your contribution Slevin, but you are completely wrong.

Thunder - Playing with your entire roll separated on 20 or so tables is fine. If you are comfortable with the 20BI rule and with 20 tables then it is no different from 2-4 tabling. I personally play 24 FR tables but with 50BI because I am more mentally fit with going broke on 3-4 tables at once.

Actually you are wrong, but good luck.

^^^
LOL!!!...... burn

Do you agree with Dean gametight?

if you play with 100% of your roll in play, then how are you going to rebuy to stack the donkey who sucked out on you?

My question is not about risking 100% on one table but adhering to BR management across multiple tables.

So if you allow 5% (for the sake of easy maths) and you 5 table then you have 25% of your BR at stake even though each table is within your BR guidelines.

And that is why I was asking is it okay, or (assuming you set yourself a 5% limit) that the 5 tables combined should not exceed your 5%.

100% may or may not be in use, it was a theoretical question.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Do you agree with Dean gametight?

Dean knows what the F*&% he's talking about..... do yourself a favor and listen to the man.

It doesnt matter whether you are playing 1 table or 24 tables ( assuming you are still a winning player in the game ). You are still getting all the same cards and situations you would be getting into.... just gettting through them all quicker.

That said, I dont think 20 buy-ins is even close to enough imo.

i know. but if you are stacked by a huge donator, you would have to close down another table in order to rebuy to continue playing against him/her, that seems like a bad situation.

Originally Posted by pgil

if you play with 100% of your roll in play, then how are you going to rebuy to stack the donkey who sucked out on you?

Drop your tightest table

I've actually played like this quite a bit...sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes not. It's less than ideal. Especially since the stars auto-reload script I used crashes the software if I don't have enough funds...

Originally Posted by Deanglow

Thanks for your contribution Slevin, but you are completely wrong.

Thunder - Playing with your entire roll separated on 20 or so tables is fine. If you are comfortable with the 20BI rule and with 20 tables then it is no different from 2-4 tabling. I personally play 24 FR tables but with 50BI because I am more mentally fit with going broke on 3-4 tables at once.

This. I would also like to add that leaning while playing 6+ tables (of full ring, less for 6-max) isn't a great idea. So if you are playing with a 20buy-in bankroll than you are probably playing the microstakes so 20tabling 2nl with a $40 roll isn't a great idea. This is of course if you subscribe to the "increase the number of buy-ins you play with as you increase stakes" philosophy. I hope this makes sense...?

This is how I moved up the limits in poker. This was when Stars only allowed you to play 12 tables.

One year ago, about August I had $100 in my Pstars account from cashing out to pay for a study abroad program. I had played up to $200NL, 500k hands under my belt, and a year of experience. I would often just donk around with my $500-3000 roll taking shots at $10 rebuy, sunday million and such way out of my roll just for fun. After 3 months off from poker, I decided to take it seriously and use BR management.

I started 35 tabling $1.10 sit and gos and after a day or so I was up to $150. Then I played $10NL for a couple weeks and moved up to $25NL at $400. Up to $50NL in a week at $800. Up to $100NL at $1500. On September 7, less than one month after my "rebirth," I chopped a huge tourney for $4.3k and had a $6.5k roll. All through good BR management, on my terms, with what I was comfortable with (12 tabling with 15 or so BI).

I cashed out $4k and went back to $100NL. Up to $200NL at $3k in October. Around this time Stars introduced 24 tabling, and I did that with $5k or so until January (making 5ptbb/100).

I moved up to 2/4 then, which took me a few tries. Fastfoward to today and I'm playing $400NL FR, 6max, or HU depending on what games are good and my mood. I dont play with 15 or 20 buyins anymore because poker is hard. A 35BI downswing in Feb-march taught me that.

Right now I'm going with my Dad to pick up a car and on Friday I'm leaving for Argentina and Uruguay for 2 weeks to travel and for this: http://www.lapt.com/tournaments/punta/

A year ago I had $100 in my Stars account. I felt comfortable with my aggressive BR management up to 2/4. To each his own. Granted, I had a fucking clue what I was doing, which is more than I can say for some posters giving shit advice about something they know dick about.

Originally Posted by Thunder

My question is not about risking 100% on one table but adhering to BR management across multiple tables.

So if you allow 5% (for the sake of easy maths) and you 5 table then you have 25% of your BR at stake even though each table is within your BR guidelines.

And that is why I was asking is it okay, or (assuming you set yourself a 5% limit) that the 5 tables combined should not exceed your 5%.

100% may or may not be in use, it was a theoretical question.

Ok, everyone knows I'm no pro, but here is my thought... the only problem I see here is if you start running bad on a table and a bit of tilt carries to the other tables, which draws them down... you stand to risk 25% in a tilt fest... if you are good at controlling your tilt, then I don't see a huge problem at it... especially if you are running well. BUT... another blip just popped into my head... what happens if that negative variance hits, are you willing to lose that 25% in one session (a session being one multi-table run)? I think what I am saying is do you feel you have enough control to know when to just drop and run so you don't lose the whole 25% at once? I don't know that I do.

Ok, everyone knows I'm no pro, but here is my thought... the only problem I see here is if you start running bad on a table and a bit of tilt carries to the other tables, which draws them down... you stand to risk 25% in a tilt fest... if you are good at controlling your tilt, then I don't see a huge problem at it... especially if you are running well. BUT... another blip just popped into my head... what happens if that negative variance hits, are you willing to lose that 25% in one session (a session being one multi-table run)? I think what I am saying is do you feel you have enough control to know when to just drop and run so you don't lose the whole 25% at once? I don't know that I do.

my point exactly

@dean - dont sound like you know what your talking about to me. get off your high horse.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

@dean - dont sound like you know what your talking about to me. get off your high horse.

Troll formula:

Vehemently question the veterans who have proven themselves, and come across as a dick while doing so.

suck up formula : vitriolicaly attack anyone that goes against a veteran in the process making yourself look like a complete jerk.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

suck up formula : vitriolicaly attack anyone that goes against an ego in the process making yourself look like a complete fool.

I'm curious what specifically about dean's post led you to believe he didn't know what he was talking about.

Let's hear some details cause lazy trolling is pretty lame.

His comments re br management stating it's fine to play with 100% of your br in any given session providing it's split across your preferred number of bi's.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

His comments re br management stating it's fine to play with 100% of your br in any given session providing it's split across your preferred number of bi's.

Your comments about psychological 'padding' are valid, but not relevant to everyone. More experienced grinders are comfortable losing 5 of their 20 BIs without tilting.

As long as you have a few more to rebuy so you don't have to leave a juicy table, I really don't see a problem with having most of your roll in play, as long as you're still adhering to the BR guidelines you're personally comfortable with.

Originally Posted by Pac

I had my fists up ready like this ... Motherfucker put your hands down...

I got a 12 year old nephew like this... can't fight for sh!t and he always wants to with the same damn end result every time. So I figure there gotta be 3 reasons someone act up like this...

a. They bored. I gotta give on that one, 'cause we all been where kicking sh!t up is fun. Not very productive, but fun for a while -- 'til everyone gets tired of your nonsense and basically just ignores you.
b. They 12. Well, my nephew is 12 so can't fault him for that. But still only two outcomes -- people eventually ignore you or end up cashing your mouth's check with your teeth (literally or metaphorically... don't much make a difference...)
c. Just straight up fronting. Which is okay if you got it when you tested, but most don't so ends up like a) and b)

Oh... and then I spose there's a d). Flat out poor people skills but a genuine desire to learn. That's cool, and usually you get some latitude to get straight -- which IMHO has been given in spades here in this situation. But at some point.......

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

His comments re br management stating it's fine to play with 100% of your br in any given session providing it's split across your preferred number of bi's.

Your comments about psychological 'padding' are valid, but not relevant to everyone. More experienced grinders are comfortable losing 5 of their 20 BIs without tilting.

As long as you have a few more to rebuy so you don't have to leave a juicy table, I really don't see a problem with having most of your roll in play, as long as you're still adhering to the BR guidelines you're personally comfortable with.

Plus in context, this really is a non-point. Straight up noobies shouldn't be multi-tabling 20 tables.... or even 10... 'cause it kills the ability to really dial in on the sh!t that makes this poker and not 3-card monty. So you flat out not gonna run into this problem until you got the skillz to 20-table profitably (which includes the discipline to mitigate tilt and manage within your roll) and that sure as sh!t puts it outside of anything I got the talent to comment on and prolly into a different thread...

So if the question is "Should I 20 table as a noobie?", then I'm sure the unanimous answer is "no"...
If the question is "Can I 20 table for my full roll if I got the skillz?", then we got a different discussion...

I take it your post is directed at me my man Sars.

I'm not acting up, I will not tolerate egos ruiling the place. This is an open forum for the exchange of poker related concepts and ideas. Just because someone has been here 30 years doesn't give them the right to swagger about like they own the place. If anyone chooses to ignore me because I am posting my thoughts on a particular matter then I would be quite happy for them to do that, because frankly I'd rather not converse with them.

And on the subject of communicative skills I have a BA In English Literature, and run a small marketing department - I think I am reasonably qualified in that arena.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

I If anyone chooses to ignore me because I am posting my thoughts on a particular matter then I would be quite happy for them to do that, because frankly I'd rather not converse with them.

That's just it.. We can't ignore you on most subjects. Want to know the reason?? And it's not because we have a hard-on for you. It's simply because you are posting POOR ADVICE!!1!. And we, as a community, do not want other new players reading your advice and thinking that it is great advice they should go by. They come here to learn how to play a solid game and many other things regarding poker. We would fail as an online poker community if we allowed one authority-testing poster lead them down the wrong path. We aren't about to do that, so we have to reply and tell them "No.. Lucky is off here. Do not listen to him!". So we do, and you think we are personally attacking you. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure alot of posters here don't give a shit whether you succeed or not, due to your antics. However, we aren't going to let you bring others down with you.

So next time you go to give advice, and are told you are wrong, it's not because we hate you, it's because.......your WRONG! Nothing more to it.

'we' ... 'we' ... 'you' .... 'we' .... wow I can't wait to get into this exclusive 'we' club seen as it's filled with such thoughtful open minded individuals.

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

His comments re br management stating it's fine to play with 100% of your br in any given session providing it's split across your preferred number of bi's.

Your comments about psychological 'padding' are valid, but not relevant to everyone. More experienced grinders are comfortable losing 5 of their 20 BIs without tilting.

As long as you have a few more to rebuy so you don't have to leave a juicy table, I really don't see a problem with having most of your roll in play, as long as you're still adhering to the BR guidelines you're personally comfortable with.

Plus in context, this really is a non-point. Straight up noobies shouldn't be multi-tabling 20 tables.... or even 10... 'cause it kills the ability to really dial in on the sh!t that makes this poker and not 3-card monty. So you flat out not gonna run into this problem until you got the skillz to 20-table profitably (which includes the discipline to mitigate tilt and manage within your roll) and that sure as sh!t puts it outside of anything I got the talent to comment on and prolly into a different thread...

So if the question is "Should I 20 table as a noobie?", then I'm sure the unanimous answer is "no"...
If the question is "Can I 20 table for my full roll if I got the skillz?", then we got a different discussion...

This is what I was trying to say, but put bertter. Basically noobs just learning the game should not be 20 tabling at all, let alone with there whole roll. Basically the only situation I could see somebody 20 tabling with there full roll is like what dean said. Somebody plays for a year or two and has to cash out most of there roll. They decide to play 20 tables with 20 buy-ins of stakes way below what they are used to playing to get back to the stakes they were playing. This is much better than them actually playing 200nl or whatever on a $500 roll. 20 tabling with 20 buy-ins would be completely fine in this situation imo.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

'we' ... 'we' ... 'you' .... 'we' .... wow I can't wait to get into this exclusive 'we' club seen as it's filled with such thoughtful open minded individuals.

Hi,

What was the purpose of this post?

Bye,

a500lbgorilla

Slevin, please post a source backing your claim in this thread. The advice I posted is common practice among the knowledgeable poker community. Get back to us.

a500 - I was trying to highlight the fact that the 'we' that stacks speaks of exists only in his mind. Everyone that posts is a part of the community by definition, I just find his whole 'you' 'us' mentality banefully detrimental to the 'forum' ethic.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

I'm not acting up, I will not tolerate egos ruiling the place

The only ego on display is Lucky's. Disagreeing with a better player (Dean) is one thing but outright dissing him and telling him he know's sh!t - whilst showing a complete lack of being able to take criticism (despite being advised in numerous other threads) is evidence of an ego running amok.

Just because someone has been here 30 years doesn't give them the right to swagger about like they own the place.

Again, the only evidence of this is coming from Lucky. Dean corrected Lucky and posted his own answer - to which Lucky went to war; again despite other people trying to advise him not to and for very valid reasons (see XxStacksxX post in the "dick" thread).

He was told not to dish out advice and kicked up a stink re Hellmuth's book. He then ran away (crying in a goodbye thread) before he returned saying he had learned from all the advice that had been given. And within a week or so he is at it again: posting about a mail he received, dishing out advice that he is ill equipped to do, ignoring advice from better people (and telling them to get off their high horse) and taking everything personally. Again.

I think I have given advice 2 or 3 times out of my 400 posts - and only on really basic things, despite winning 2 satellites into a $1000 MTT buy in MTT and then cashing in it (amongst other achievements). The rest are questions because though I am racking good results, I am still way behind most people here and so I ask, ask and ask. And then I ask some more.

If anyone chooses to ignore me because I am posting my thoughts on a particular matter then I would be quite happy for them to do that, because frankly I'd rather not converse with them.

Case in point. Another being as soon as Dean pointed out how he may be coming across as a dick, and I added my own observation about lacking a thick skin whilst advising others to develop one, we were added to his idiot/ignore list. Swiftly followed up by a challenge to someone who 24 tables by a guy losing freerolls and choosing a gay avatar

And on the subject of communicative skills I have a BA In English Literature, and run a small marketing department - I think I am reasonably qualified in that arena.

You may think you do but that is one of your problems. The truth ain't necessarily so. You have a degree in Literature - analysing text. That ain't communication skills. I have a BA in Literature. And an MA in Creative Writing. I also am a Master Practitioner of NLP - and this puts me way ahead of you in terms of communication skills, but I don't shout about it.

There 2 or 3 threads previously where it was you against the world. And now there are another two. Yet it's the world that's wrong, is it?

Everyone has tried to help you these past few weeks - even explaining that you have deserved some of the harsher comments and that they were all intended to help you. Even the 'mean' ones. You said you had learnt and you said that you were not going to cut your nose off to spite your face. But you are doing so again. With me and most definitely with Dean. Remember what i said about horse and making it drink?

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Everyone that posts is a part of the community by definition, I just find his whole 'you' 'us' mentality banefully detrimental to the 'forum' ethic.

LuckySlevin:

There is no 'you' and 'us, more like 'noobs' and 'highly experienced players'. You are the former and should listen to the latter, respectfully. You should not expect to be treated as an equal in these forums until you have earned the right. Believe it or not, you're being treated with a lot more patience than you would be at some other forums I can name, so please appreciate that fact.

FYI: This thread will be locked if it degenerates into a flamewar. Any futher posts should be considered very carefully.

Thunder get over it, you have met someone that isn't going to bow to your constant attempts to impress yourself over them. Realise.Accept.Move On.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Thunder get over it, you have met someone that isn't going to bow to your constant attempts to impress yourself over them. Realise.Accept.Move On.

FYI: This thread will be locked if it degenerates into a flamewar. Any futher posts should be considered very carefully.

I'm giving you one since you posted before this comment was added. First and final warning.

Warpe there is a nice way of saying something and a not nice way of saying the same thing. A little tact would go a long way.

Originally Posted by sarbox68

Flat out poor people skills but a genuine desire to learn.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

And on the subject of communicative skills I have a BA In English Literature, and run a small marketing department

I realize I just quote myself, so first up, holla to me!

... but the real comment... trippy (and most telling...) part of this sh!t is I didn't even say nothing about communicative skills. IMHO best communicators I know do way more listening than gum bumping, so when they spit they got something real to say. But maybe they don't cover that sh!t in a BA in English Lit....

good thread

i agree w/ dean

*smiles*

It's funny how slevin accuses everyone else of being on an ego trip when his ego seems to prevent him from even acknowledging the fact that he may be wrong about a subject he's studied far less than those he decries as egomaniacs.

Poker players have generally pretty big egos, but even the best have the humility to recognize that they still have things to learn from others.

Hey Dozer, I haven't heard an argument for why it would make sense to play all your BR in one session if I had and it was valid of course It would probabally change my mind.

I just see no point risking your whole bankroll in one session. Anything could happen. You could go on tilt. You could have a power outage. Your adsl/cable w/e could go down.

I just think it would make more sense to only have a set amount of your br in play at any one time for these reasons.

If someone has reasoning why this is wrong I'd love to hear it.

Originally Posted by d0zer

It's funny how slevin accuses everyone else of being on an ego trip when his ego seems to prevent him from even acknowledging the fact that he may be wrong about a subject he's studied far less than those he decries as egomaniacs.

Poker players have generally pretty big egos, but even the best have the humility to recognize that they still have things to learn from others.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I really have nothing against you but it just seems like in all of your posts you are trying to test the waters and piss people off. You blantantly call out a 400nl reg that has been playing poker for a good deal longer than you, and HE IS A WINNING PLAYER... Then you proceed to tell him he does't know what he is talking about in another thread.

You have been here less than a month and you have already managed to pick two or more e-fights for quite a few players. Honestly, that is saying something about you and the way you are approaching things than anything else.

Sums up your "communication skills".

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Thunder get over it, you have met someone that isn't going to bow to your constant attempts to impress yourself over them. Realise.Accept.Move On.

And you keep on pushing when even my post contained truth and help in equal measures.

*smiles*

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Warpe there is a nice way of saying something and a not nice way of saying the same thing. A little tact would go a long way.

{locked}

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

Hey Dozer, I haven't heard an argument for why it would make sense to play all your BR in one session if I had and it was valid of course It would probabally change my mind.

Your BR is not all in play in one session if it is spread across 20 tables no more than it is if you play one table for 20 sessions. So long as you were willing to move down at the proper levels whn losing and up when winning. Playing 20K hands at one table or over 20 is the exact same thing

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

I just see no point risking your whole bankroll in one session. Anything could happen. You could go on tilt. You could have a power outage. Your adsl/cable w/e could go down.

Other than tilt, none of this effects BR. Do you play poker?

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

I just think it would make more sense to only have a set amount of your br in play at any one time for these reasons.

What mathematical reasons are you using to "make more sense" of this? This statement is unfounded and is a gut reaction to what you perceive as wrong, without any math to back it up or statistics on variance.

Originally Posted by LuckySlevin

If someone has reasoning why this is wrong I'd love to hear it.

I'm done