Bankroll Calculator

Hi! Click on the link below now...

Matt's Poker Bankroll Calculator

The newest version is live and ready for you to have a look at. It tells you:

• - What bankroll you need to play a game
  
  - What games you should be playing with your bankroll

I would really appreciate any comments, either here or to my email address.

I am struggling to see why you think I need 90 buyins to play $25NL just because I three-table. Even if we assume I should only have 5% of my BR in play at any one time, that means a BR of 60 buyins, and that seems excessive to me.

I just don't think 3-tabling triples variance.

No, no, me either. That's what i'm babbling about in point 3!

SO what do you reckon...
x buyins for the first table
1/2 x for each table after that?


or something more complex like...
X buyins for table 1
0.75 * X for table 2
X * (0.75 * X) for 3
and so on... sort of a law of diminishing returns.

Very Nice Matthew!

I would maybe just add that, as you move up in stakes for SnGs, you need even more of a BR to sustain it, particularly for standard/cautious. i.e.

5s = 10x
11s = 20-25x
22s = 25-30x
33s = 30-35x
55s = 40x
109s = 50x

I would say that I have a "careful" attitude to money, yet it advises me to play at the $22s with a 660 roll. I didn't move up 'til I hit 1k!!!!

RIght I have imporved the left hand side to make it more realistic with multi-tabling

Originally Posted by Staresy

I would maybe just add that, as you move up in stakes for SnGs, you need even more of a BR to sustain it, particularly for standard/cautious. i.e.

5s = 10x
11s = 20-25x
22s = 25-30x
33s = 30-35x
55s = 40x
109s = 50x

That's a good idea. A sliding scale as you go up in stakes. I'll put that in when i can.

I would say that I have a "careful" attitude to money, yet it advises me to play at the $22s with a 660 roll. I didn't move up 'til I hit 1k!!!!

With all due respect, i think that's covered in the text at the top which says

"If you're good enough to play $2/$4 NL and you have the bankroll to, but you're sat at a $1/$2 table then you're giving away free money."

660 is 30 buyins for the $22's. that's pretty well bankrolled i would say.

I appreciate the comments though, and I want to make it better so keep them coming. Will prob be next week before it's finalised as i'm away all weekend.

I like the left side but the right side seems to be broken once I try it with higher values.

Apparently this calculator knows what a total bad-ass LHE mastermind I am cuz it says I can play $50 - $100 on a bankroll of $800.

Here I'm thinking I need 300BB when I only needed 8 all along

Yeah. Limit is basically fucked, isn't it.

The problem is I have never, ever played Limit HE so i don't really have a feel for it at all.

Do I need a totally different method to calculate LHE bankroll? I was assuming that you sit down at a limit table with 50 BB and you need ~200 BB bankroll... and working it out from there. Is that wrong?

You should speak to Fnord or ElipsesJeff or one of the other Limit afficionados.

Originally Posted by DogOnMySide

Yeah. Limit is basically fucked, isn't it.

The problem is I have never, ever played Limit HE so i don't really have a feel for it at all.

Do I need a totally different method to calculate LHE bankroll? I was assuming that you sit down at a limit table with 50 BB and you need ~200 BB bankroll... and working it out from there. Is that wrong?

The BR guideline at low limits is 300 Big Bets for the limit. You write the games as Small Bet/ Big Bet , e.g. 0.50/1 (which is just about the equivalent buyin of $25NL.

Id imagine youd need a bigger BR at higher limits but multitabling shouldnt really affect your bankroll needs at all.

Edit: 1 Small bet is 1 Big Blind and 1 Big Bet is (usually) 2 small bets.

EDIT: I'm not a limit player :P

I think you should just use an adjustment factor for multitabling.

Use a number like 1.15.

So for your calculation of singletable 50nl you'll run:

50*20=1000

Two table:

50*20*1.15= 1150

Four table:

50*20*1.15*1.15*1.15= 1520

And etc. That might temper your number down a bit.

Originally Posted by Murd0c

In limit a BB is actually only a Big Blind NOT a Big Bet.

Well wtf is Big Bet for then? No limit you can bet what you want.

3) The approach to multi-tabling is essentially... you need a separate bankroll for each table. e.g you need 20 buyins to play 1 table, so if you are 2 tabling you need 40. I think i should 'attenuate' this... so maybe... you need a little less than a full 20 for the 2nd table, a little less than that for the 3rd and so on. agree/disagree?

No, in theory multi tabling doesnt increase variance. In practise it does a little because when you tilt you tilt on 3-tables and also your winrate is lower because you pay less attention to the table (lower winrate\edge over other players means more variance).

Sorry Pelion I was a little confused. A Big Bet is in LIMIT is twice the Big Blind because on the turn and river betting amounts are doubled. No limit your right there is no such thing as a Big Bet (unless your referring to PTBB).

Originally Posted by Renton

I think you should just use an adjustment factor for multitabling.

Use a number like 1.15.

So for your calculation of singletable 50nl you'll run:

50*20=1000

Two table:

50*20*1.15= 1150

Four table:

50*20*1.15*1.15*1.15= 1520

And etc. That might temper your number down a bit.

I already did this, but a backwards way round. And my calculations requires more bankroll than yours. Basically i used a multiplier of 0.75 for each table...

Table 1 needs 50*20 = 1000
2 Tables needs 1000 from table 1, plus 50*20*0.75 = 750
3 tables needs 1750 from tables 1 and 2, plus 50*20*0.75*0.75 = 562
4 tables is 50*20*0.75*0.75*0.75 = 421

So my 4 tabling 50 calulation asks for a BR of 2733 or 54 buyins, whereas you wanted 1520, or 30 buyins.

the 0.75 bit is a variable so i can easily tweak it. the lower the number, the less effect multi-tabling has.

I have a feeling you're more confident with multi-tabling than the "target audience" for this thing anyway Renton. Especially after reading your bonus whoring post.

Thanks for the help everyone.

Originally Posted by DogOnMySide

I already did this, but a backwards way round. And my calculations requires more bankroll than yours. Basically i used a multiplier of 0.75 for each table...

Table 1 needs 50*20 = 1000
2 Tables needs 1000 from table 1, plus 50*20*0.75 = 750
3 tables needs 1750 from tables 1 and 2, plus 50*20*0.75*0.75 = 562
4 tables is 50*20*0.75*0.75*0.75 = 421

So my 4 tabling 50 calulation asks for a BR of 2733 or 54 buyins, whereas you wanted 1520, or 30 buyins.

Renton's numbers are much more accurate IMO, there is just no way that you need almost double the bankroll when you are playing 4-tables. If you do then you shouldn't 4-table.

I think its pretty low on the LHE side. I tried to test my stakes but I can only buyin with $100, can you bump that up to $250? As it stands I put in average numbers for 2/4 and it gave me a BR of $700+, which is about $500 off the standard. I would be down with helping you fix this.

Havent read any of the replies above I think this article is great for this :

http://www.pocketfives.com/5C57520F-...240CB3E59.aspx

Everything you need to know about limit bankrolls:

Lets start with what to call the games. We refer to everything in this format "SmallBet"/"BigBet". So I currently play $5/$10, meaning the small bet is $5, and the big bet is $10. (Theres often a lot of confusion about the use of 'BB' -- sometimes its big blind, sometimes its big bets. The big bet is bigblind x 2)

For full ring games, common rule is 300 big bets. Therefore, at $1/$2 you'd need $600.

For short handed games, the common rule is 500 big bets. Therefore at $5/$10, you need $5,000

However as you move higher, or if youre playing pro, you should expect to increase your bankroll requirements. I brought 500 bets to 5/10 short handed, but didnt move to 10/20 SH until I had 1000 bets. This is fairly common.

Any other questions feel free to PM me.

Hi guys. Thanks for all the advice and +ve comments.

I'm going to Ireland for a long weekend tomorrow so unlikely to do anything on this til Monday night.

Will use all your advice though and post an update when it's been re-worked.

I stuck a link in the limit thread

Originally Posted by pokerfanatic

300 * 1bb = Min BR for FR

I go with 500bb+ for 6max

500 * 1bb = Min BR for SH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Example you want to play 2/4 FR or SH

300 * 4 = $1200

500 * 4 = $2000

i 5 table off a standard bankroll of 20buy ins per limit
And have been known to 4-6 table 6max lhe (more swingy) on a 600big bet br

Dont discuss!

Safety is good but i think as demiparadigm pointed out in a pevious bankroll thread, br is related to standard deviation more than anything else.
Potentially, i should be using a deeper bankroll because my standard deviation is significantly higher than it should be (more big pots ) and thus my risk of going broke is much higher.
Saying that i only 2 table 100NL when playing loose or 5 table s TAGG.

Hmm.

I really dont agree with changing the bankroll requirements depending on the number of tables you play at.

If you have the bankroll to play at $100NL, and you have the skill, you can play 1 table, 5 tables, or 10 tables... whatever your skill can handle.

Basically, the number of tables you can play is a function of your skill at multitableing, not your bankroll.

Originally Posted by Laeelin

I really dont agree with changing the bankroll requirements depending on the number of tables you play at.

If you have the bankroll to play at $100NL, and you have the skill, you can play 1 table, 5 tables, or 10 tables... whatever your skill can handle.

Basically, the number of tables you can play is a function of your skill at multitableing, not your bankroll.

Well, yes and no. I think everyone here accepts that most people will have a lower ROI when they multitable than if they mono-table. What this means is that your downswings can be bigger because you will play marginally fewer winning hands to offset the losing hands. Add in the tilt factor that arkana mentions (a regrettable but absolutely genuine concept) and I can see a justification for adding a percentage per table.

If we're going to be pernickety about it, I would suggest something like this:

for 2 tables, + 50% of buyin/2
for 3tables, + 50% of buyin/2 + 50% of buyin/3
for 4 tables, + 50% of buyin/2 + 50% of buyin/3 + 50% of buyin/4

The maths would therefore be, playing $100NL with a buyin of 20x:

1 table: $2000
2 tables: $2500
3 tables: $2833
4 tables: $3083
etc.

The newest version is live and ready for you to have a look at. SEE THE TOP OF THIS THREAD FOR THE LINK

It tells you:

• - What bankroll you need to play a game
  
  - What games you should be playing with your bankroll

I would really appreciate any comments, either here or to my email address which is on the page itself.

The multitabling thing seems much better now. I still think the jump between 1 and 2 tables is a little on the high side but from 2-3, 3-4 etc seems like a good jump now.

Originally Posted by arkana

3) The approach to multi-tabling is essentially... you need a separate bankroll for each table. e.g you need 20 buyins to play 1 table, so if you are 2 tabling you need 40. I think i should 'attenuate' this... so maybe... you need a little less than a full 20 for the 2nd table, a little less than that for the 3rd and so on. agree/disagree?

No, in theory multi tabling doesnt increase variance. In practise it does a little because when you tilt you tilt on 3-tables and also your winrate is lower because you pay less attention to the table (lower winrate\edge over other players means more variance).

I dont agree with either posts. In theory I would say multitabling decreases variance, and decreases tilt.

Read this:
http://www.pocketfives.com/6B52CD26-...077ACF9FB.aspx

Looks about on. For 8 tabling I'm currently doing 30xBuyins for NL.