BR Management for people with balls

Okay so like check this out. The next person who posts about 20 buyins being enough to move up to the next level of stakes in NLHE is getting kicked in the fucking nuts if it involves 25nl or higher. Here's why.

First I want to make this very clear: shit happens in poker. I mean for real, some fat bastard wins the WSOP in 2003, and like a year later the goddamn world flips on it's head for NLHE. Poker is crazy. Shit happens in poker to you, to me, to good players and to bad players. If you're not prepared for the shit that happens, you won't make it. Period.

Let me repeat this because it's so important: shit happens. I mean shit, by some fucking miracle and with help from the people here and other places, I somehow made a little over $100/hour in January. That sounds all fine and dandy, but after about 25k hands, I was running bad to the tune of around -$2350 on all-ins.

For all of you younger folks (including myself), do you know how fucking sick it feels to know that you're playing really well in a limit that you've just moved up to but that you're down more in a week than your parents make in a month? It's like getting kicked in the nuts by a fucking mule every 5 seconds the whole time you're running bad. If I type at 60 words/minute, then it's like getting kicked in the nuts three times while I typed that last sentence.

All of us guys know what to do when we're likely to take a shot to the nuts: we wear a fucking cup. Bankroll management is your cup.

If you want a little cheap ass $1.00 thin as fuck cup for your nads from the Dollar Store, then play with 15-20 buy-ins. If you want a hardcore steel muay thai cup that can take shots from a fucking jackhammer and still leave your nuts unrattled and silky smooth, then play with more.

On a related note, every discussion on BR management centres around when to move up, when personally I think the decision of when to move down is a much more important one. Of course tieing in with your post, the more buyins you have when you move up, the more kicks in the nuts you can take before needing to move back down.

Welcome to FTR, Samuel L Jackson

Bjs, the decision on when to move down, when observing proper BR, is simply a function of your roll. Moving up, however, requires a lot more thought, mostly about whether you have the talent or experience, confidence and thick skin, to move up.

Thats how it should be, yes. But how many people move up because they have X (lets say 25) buyins, because thats what they read in some guide or someone told them, but then wait till their roll is demolished before finally moving back down, because they either ignored or never read anything about putting a stop-loss in place for their movedown decision?

lol I won 2400 in a MTT, bankroll went up to 2600 so I started playing 100NL, won 500 there, then moved down to 50NL cause I didn't want to just ahead too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

If you want a hardcore steel muay thai cup that can take shots from a fucking jackhammer and still leave your nuts unrattled and silky smooth, then play with more.

---

Thats fricken funny...

Listen up motherfuckers.

Moving down is like moving up except it's easier since you're going to be playing against a bunch of relative dumbfucks. If you're getting your ass kicked at one level, why the fuck wouldn't you move down and play against people who aren't as good? I know why -- because you're a dumbass who's too proud to play the same game with smaller numbers. Thank you for your contribution to the poker economy; your donation is needed post-UIGEA and much appreciated.

Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazbox

lol I won 2400 in a MTT, bankroll went up to 2600 so I started playing 100NL, won 500 there, then moved down to 50NL cause I didn't want to just ahead too much.

---

I was playing 50nl until I got up to like $4000 or something. You can tell that people like you and I value their fucking balls.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6...lpummeldq2.gif
This is you without good BR management.

Edit: Btw this is of Joe Son taking shots from Keith Hackney in a very early UFC.

to each his own. i have no problem jumping up limits when i have 20 buyins because i have no problem moving down when i drop 3-4 of said buyins. wheres the problem here? i here what your saying if someone has no discipline to move down but not everyone is the same.

Sry but this is only for ballas in training, not the casual player.

NEXT?

define ballas in training

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

define ballas in training

---

Well it's like balls in training except you add an A.

Ballas have deep bankrolls, and ballas in training should as well.

YEAH MOTHERFUCKAHS

I dunno what spoonitnow is on, but I'm liking it :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I dunno what spoonitnow is on, but I'm liking it :D.

---

Mountain Dew ftw

Much <3 for bode obv

all I can say is if you have been playing poker for more than a year, how's your BR management treated you so far? Where are you now?

Spoon? When did you start back to poker again? Where are you now? What has been your BR discipline?

That's my point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Listen up motherfuckers.

Moving down is like moving up except it's easier since you're going to be playing against a bunch of relative dumbfucks. If you're getting your ass kicked at one level, why the fuck wouldn't you move down and play against people who aren't as good? I know why -- because you're a dumbass who's too proud to play the same game with smaller numbers. Thank you for your contribution to the poker economy; your donation is needed post-UIGEA and much appreciated.

Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazbox

lol I won 2400 in a MTT, bankroll went up to 2600 so I started playing 100NL, won 500 there, then moved down to 50NL cause I didn't want to just ahead too much.

---

I was playing 50nl until I got up to like $4000 or something. You can tell that people like you and I value their fucking balls.

---

A bit rough wording, but I could not have said it better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bode

to each his own. i have no problem jumping up limits when i have 20 buyins because i have no problem moving down when i drop 3-4 of said buyins. wheres the problem here? i here what your saying if someone has no discipline to move down but not everyone is the same.

---

Oh you saw this thread already

I was going to point you to it in your ops thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

all I can say is if you have been playing poker for more than a year, how's your BR management treated you so far? Where are you now?

Spoon? When did you start back to poker again? Where are you now? What has been your BR discipline?

That's my point!

---

Okay for me personally, I started on a $200 loan at 10nl early last May, and in January I made $12k grinding only full ring. Post-25nl I played on at least 35 buy-ins, and 50 for 200nl. That's not really the point.

An advantage of a deeper BR management that's often overlooked is that the play at different levels is a bit different, so when you move up/down a lot then you have to make more adjustments, which I believe can cause you play with a lower EV.

In all seriousness though, if you're a hobbyist player than 20 buy-ins is probably fine as long as you move up/down when necessary.

kick ass thread spoon :D

although i'm a level below hobbyist

but flomo, you're a level above balla

I love this thread, and completely agree - but I want to point out that I believe this should be for the hobbyist as well. Spoon is absolutely right in the first thread about getting kicked in the nuts. Think about it - if you lose 2 to 3 buyins on a bankroll of 20 in one night - that's a bad night. That's 15% of your roll. That's a kick in the balls - you got beat.

Now comes the part that actually matters - because the money doesn't - losing 15% of your roll in one night actually may start making you think about your play - can you really beat the people at the table - what's going on here? Should I move down - am I that bad? What happens next - WHAP, doubts, bad play and you lose more - 3 more buy-ins at that level and now your down 30%

Great discussion on the newbie spiral of death - right?

Where am I going - recreational players - there are two types - ones that are here to improve their game to high level - and people that just like to play poker and could care less - otherwise known as FISH. They are the ones that good recs and pros a like want at the tables.

So I would suggest that the same bankroll management would also apply to recreational players that are serious about the game - as well as the - um, BALLAS.

Very insightful post, pilotpa23
:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

all I can say is if you have been playing poker for more than a year, how's your BR management treated you so far? Where are you now?

Spoon? When did you start back to poker again? Where are you now? What has been your BR discipline?

That's my point!

---

Okay for me personally, I started on a $200 loan at 10nl early last May, and in January I made $12k grinding only full ring. Post-25nl I played on at least 35 buy-ins, and 50 for 200nl. That's not really the point.

An advantage of a deeper BR management that's often overlooked is that the play at different levels is a bit different, so when you move up/down a lot then you have to make more adjustments, which I believe can cause you play with a lower EV.

In all seriousness though, if you're a hobbyist player than 20 buy-ins is probably fine as long as you move up/down when necessary.

---

But it was my point. Almost anyone who practices a much higher bankroll requirement has moved farther and faster than the players that practice a much tighter or smaller requirement (me included). This is why I have now changed my BR requirements completely and will never again attempt to move up on a 20 buy in roll. Spending your time watching the cashier or your PT stats to see if you should move down, instead of just playing "your game" for a couple sessions, is counterproductive. Also, I think this may be a cause of why so many of us run better at the middle or end of a stake, before moving up, and run worse when first moving up. Having less "money" and spending more to play, bet, call and fold is just so much harder to think about, and steals focus. The differences between $10NL and $50NL is negligible compared to our thoughts while playing at different points in our BR. Too many of us focus on the wrong things, and when we focus on the money and not the play, we play worse. Losing buy ins and not why we lose becomes a priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

all I can say is if you have been playing poker for more than a year, how's your BR management treated you so far? Where are you now?

Spoon? When did you start back to poker again? Where are you now? What has been your BR discipline?

That's my point!

---

Okay for me personally, I started on a $200 loan at 10nl early last May, and in January I made $12k grinding only full ring. Post-25nl I played on at least 35 buy-ins, and 50 for 200nl. That's not really the point.

An advantage of a deeper BR management that's often overlooked is that the play at different levels is a bit different, so when you move up/down a lot then you have to make more adjustments, which I believe can cause you play with a lower EV.

In all seriousness though, if you're a hobbyist player than 20 buy-ins is probably fine as long as you move up/down when necessary.

---

But it was my point. Almost anyone who practices a much higher bankroll requirement has moved farther and faster than the players that practice a much tighter or smaller requirement (me included). This is why I have now changed my BR requirements completely and will never again attempt to move up on a 20 buy in roll. Spending your time watching the cashier or your PT stats to see if you should move down, instead of just playing "your game" for a couple sessions, is counterproductive. Also, I think this may be a cause of why so many of us run better at the middle or end of a stake, before moving up, and run worse when first moving up. Having less "money" and spending more to play, bet, call and fold is just so much harder to think about, and steals focus. The differences between $10NL and $50NL is negligible compared to our thoughts while playing at different points in our BR. Too many of us focus on the wrong things, and when we focus on the money and not the play, we play worse. Losing buy ins and not why we lose becomes a priority.

---

Hehe, trust me, I know. BankItDrew said similar things about another BR management thread of mine, and if I wasn't too lazy I'd go dig up the quote.

Something else BankItDrew and I both agree on is that by staying at one level longer before moving up you get a lot better, and over time this cultivates really high win-rates. For example, I probably played nearly 300k hands of 100nl, but in the last 75k or so I was beating it for over 4 ptbb/100.

One argument for the 20 buy-in "rule" or whatever is that when you move up quicker your money-making ability increases. That's actually not usually the case post-25nl since you're playing against better opposition each time you move up when you probably haven't had time to improve as a player very much at your original stakes.

In terms of bankroll management, I think that people shouldn't just decide to move up based on how many buy-ins they have, but a combination of that and how hard they're beating their current level. For example, people probably shouldn't move past 25nl unless they're beating it for 5+ ptbb/100, shouldn't move past 50nl unless they're beating it for 4+ ptbb/100, and shouldn't move past 100nl unless they're beating it for 3+ ptbb/100.

alright... i'm inspired.... (a little depressed... but inspired)

I will not move up to $100NL until BR>$4k.

very good post spoon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

Almost anyone who practices a much higher bankroll requirement has moved farther and faster than the players that practice a much tighter or smaller requirement (me included). This is why I have now changed my BR requirements completely and will never again attempt to move up on a 20 buy in roll. Spending your time watching the cashier or your PT stats to see if you should move down, instead of just playing "your game" for a couple sessions, is counterproductive. Also, I think this may be a cause of why so many of us run better at the middle or end of a stake, before moving up, and run worse when first moving up. Having less "money" and spending more to play, bet, call and fold is just so much harder to think about, and steals focus. The differences between $10NL and $50NL is negligible compared to our thoughts while playing at different points in our BR. Too many of us focus on the wrong things, and when we focus on the money and not the play, we play worse. Losing buy ins and not why we lose becomes a priority.

---

I added the emphasis in TJ's quote above - TJ, this is one of the most insightful posts I've ever seen from you, and you've had some winners over the months I've been on FTR!!

This is me. I'm probably a hobbyist by the above definitions, but I played weak-tight at NL25 both times I took serious shots at it. I'm a winner over 75k hands at NL10, and people often ask me why I haven't moved up or when I am moving up. At 40+ buyins.

Hearing that Spoon played 300k hands at one level is cool. Why not? Man!! I was having a great time last night at NL10, for the last 15 minutes of an hour long session, I was 14-tabling. I hit AA, KK and like 9 times in 5 minutes, and a couple sets, AKs with TPTK flush draw (all-in on flop, lost to trip 2's). I'm throwing chips all over 8 tables at once, hitting flops, gettin' bad beats, making three all-in shoves at once (right on 2 of 3, but lost to a 4-outer). What could be more fun? I'm up 3 BI after 1k hands, and played pretty well with the action CRAZY loose.

Contrast that with my play-like-scared-little-girl approach to NL25, where I mourn every half buy-in I cough up.

I'm learning what TJ apparently knows already, that you have to play at a level where you can simply fire your semi-bluffs, cbets and shove the turn when needed, and not worry about what's going to happen if you lose this buy-in.

Final point: I can load up 14 BI at NL10 and play care free, no stress, no tilt poker. I load up 4 BI at NL25 and I'm scared money. I'm a hobbyist, so who the hell cares when I move up? Just me, I guess. Why not wait until I have 50 BI and go up there and kick some ass, enjoying the poker ride all along the way?

Hobbyist or Balla, either way, I think winning players are patient enough to manage the roll and play thousands of extra hands at a level at which they're winning.

There are players here and on other sites I visit that don't even import there hands into PT until the session is over. They have no clue if they are running good or bad, money wise. They reload with impunity, shut down bad tables with no concern that they have left money behind, and only concern themselves with their play. First tab they go into in PT is Game notes, and look over the big hands. They check some stats, and then if at all, they look at the session.

Daniel Negreanu wrote once in an article that when he played cash games for a living back in the day, before he was famous, he worked out his hourly rate over several months to be about $80/hr. He then stopped counting daily wins and losses. He would spend more time recording and memorizing hands during his play to analyze later. He knew that he made $80 an hour so why bother with the wins and losses, he wanted to focus on the game. Even on days where he would win several thousand dollars or win some of the biggest pots in his life, he never felt anything other than it was another great day playing poker for $80/hr. He realized that he could spend his mental energy on thinking about the play at the table and not "OMG, I'm down 3 buy ins"

What an awesome thread.

Hi spoon

Am I wrong in the impression that play style can have a strong effect on up and down swings? A super aggressive player, a Gus Hansen, for instance, should expect to weather much bigger swings than a super conservative player, a Barry Greenstein.

If I'm not wrong, I'd say that bankroll management should take play style into account. Wouldn't a conservative style make it safer to player a shallower bankroll for a particular level than hyper aggressive style?

How much of a difference does it make? I have no idea. Any thoughts?

I think Spoon is overstating his case a little. An upswing is just as likely as a downswing, and once you're up from 20 to 25 buyins you do have a buffer, both in terms of confidence and bankroll. But perhaps this should be seen as taking shots, rather than "moving up" per se.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

There are players here and on other sites I visit that don't even import there hands into PT until the session is over. They have no clue if they are running good or bad, money wise. They reload with impunity, shut down bad tables with no concern that they have left money behind, and only concern themselves with their play. First tab they go into in PT is Game notes, and look over the big hands. They check some stats, and then if at all, they look at the session.

---

I have the auto-import window up in PT 24/7 but I probably only look at results like once every two days or so. I've gotta keep the HHs imported to keep my HUD updated :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisTheFish

What an awesome thread.

Hi spoon

---

Sup homie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kookaburra

Am I wrong in the impression that play style can have a strong effect on up and down swings? A super aggressive player, a Gus Hansen, for instance, should expect to weather much bigger swings than a super conservative player, a Barry Greenstein.

If I'm not wrong, I'd say that bankroll management should take play style into account. Wouldn't a conservative style make it safer to player a shallower bankroll for a particular level than hyper aggressive style?

How much of a difference does it make? I have no idea. Any thoughts?

---

Win-rate and standard deviation are the main measures that affect bankroll management. As win-rate goes up, you can play with less buy-ins safely, and as SD goes up, you should play with more buy-ins for safety. Standard deviation is easily affected by taking more marginal +EV spots, but those added +EV spots, no matter how marginal, will add to win-rate, so it really just depends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

I think Spoon is overstating his case a little. An upswing is just as likely as a downswing, and once you're up from 20 to 25 buyins you do have a buffer, both in terms of confidence and bankroll. But perhaps this should be seen as taking shots, rather than "moving up" per se.

---

If you assume for a moment that an upswing is just as likely as a downswing, then the bigger your edge on your competition, the bigger your upswings will be in comparison to your downswings. However, even then the psychological advantage of a deep bankroll will help keep you from compounding mistakes after a few bad beats start you downward.

I think that the whole concept of "taking shots" is against every bit of good bankroll management advice that has ever been given. When a player moves up, they shouldn't be moving up hoping to catch an upswing that pulls them into having a decent bankroll for the game they're moving up to -- the bankroll should already be there, and so should the confidence, and the skill. Moving up should not be taken lightly.

The bottom line is that if someone can't be patient enough and cultivate enough skill to beat one level really hard, then they have no business moving up to the next level. And if they were beating the original level really hard, then they would have the money soon enough to move up with a deep bankroll.

its ineresting how this brm thingy is discussed over and over again.

I totally disagree, tho I love spoons way to start a discussion.

Beside skills and stakes it´s a function of emotional stability, risk aversion, table conditions on your site and your strategic approach to the game. BRM must be taylored for every player individually and no general BRM exists above 25NL.

Theres so much more to consider than realizing the fact that u could drop several buy ins within two days.
Question is, how do u react to certain br issues? Do u become scared money with 20 BI left or do u get sloppy when playing overrolled? Do the games at your next level become significantly harder or is there only little difference? Are u aiming at becoming a full timer or do u just want to be better than the other 9 at your table?

A million questions everyone needs to ask himself.


Instead of discussing the same topic for the gazillionst time and trying to explain "why my BRM approach is the best" I´d rather see a discussion about how a smart and individual BRM plan could be elaborated

Thanks, Spoonitnow. You said it a lot better than I could.

When I started playing online poker, around 2002, I deposited $50, built it slowly up to $400, and then decided to "take a shot" with half my bankroll at $1/$2 NL. Third hand in, I gave it all away with KK vs. AA. Now, even if I'd gotten lucky and doubled up, I fully expect I would have lost it eventually, as I was in over my head.

I know a few other "shot takers" personally, and they might have a great week, add $1500 to a $500 bankroll, but in the end they give it all back. No matter how good you are, if you keep risking a huge piece of your bankroll, you'll bust out eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

I totally disagree, tho I love spoons way to start a discussion.

---

He does have a certain talent for it, no doubt :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Beside skills and stakes it´s a function of emotional stability, risk aversion, table conditions on your site and your strategic approach to the game. BRM must be taylored for every player individually and no general BRM exists above 25NL.

Theres so much more to consider than realizing the fact that u could drop several buy ins within two days. Question is, how do u react to certain br issues? Do u become scared money with 20 BI left or do u get sloppy when playing overrolled? Do the games at your next level become significantly harder or is there only little difference? Are u aiming at becoming a full timer or do u just want to be better than the other 9 at your table?

A million questions everyone needs to ask himself.

---

I think some of the questions you are failing to ask in your above list is the following:

1. Do I have the right patience and stamina to make at the next level?
2. Have I really mastered the game at this level?
3. Am I really ready to move up?

Here's why I agree with Spoon on this one. I think a lot of people are shouting HELL NO to #1 when they overly-optimistically answer #2 and #3 as YES just because they've reached 20 BI's.

I think most players are very impatient and PROVE they don't have the right mindset to be successful at the next level by moving up there too quickly.

If moving up is a result of BR and not skills, make one buy-in a day and move up every twenty days. There is no need to take shots. If you can beat the level then beat it for one buy-in a day. After 20 days you have doubled your BR. If you can't beat the level then moving up is of no concern.

5PTBB/100 or one buy-in every thousand hands. Heck, play 2K hands and move up every 10 days. You could play $200NL in 30 days if you are playing $25NL now and never take shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

If moving up is a result of BR and not skills, make one buy-in a day and move up every twenty days. There is no need to take shots. If you can beat the level then beat it for one buy-in a day. After 20 days you have doubled your BR. If you can't beat the level then moving up is of no concern.

5PTBB/100 or one buy-in every thousand hands. Heck, play 2K hands and move up every 10 days. You could play $200NL in 30 days if you are playing $25NL now and never take shots.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

its ineresting how this brm thingy is discussed over and over again.

I totally disagree, tho I love spoons way to start a discussion.

---

No problem, much <3, glad I can contribute entertainment value occasionally as well as half-assed poker advice. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Beside skills and stakes it´s a function of emotional stability, risk aversion, table conditions on your site and your strategic approach to the game. BRM must be taylored for every player individually and no general BRM exists above 25NL.

Theres so much more to consider than realizing the fact that u could drop several buy ins within two days.
Question is, how do u react to certain br issues? Do u become scared money with 20 BI left or do u get sloppy when playing overrolled? Do the games at your next level become significantly harder or is there only little difference? Are u aiming at becoming a full timer or do u just want to be better than the other 9 at your table?

A million questions everyone needs to ask himself.

Instead of discussing the same topic for the gazillionst time and trying to explain "why my BRM approach is the best" I´d rather see a discussion about how a smart and individual BRM plan could be elaborated

---

I'm not advocating a specific bankroll management criteria, I'm just trying to bring to light the fact that the 20 buy-in "rule" is heavily outdated. The 20 buy-in "rule" is from a time when 8+ ptbb/100 win-rates and higher were common because of the fish factor. Now that win-rates are lower at 25nl+, everyone should adjust and become more conservative.

All bankroll management is derived from win-rate and standard deviation -- these combine to tell us our risk of ruin. Psychological factors come into play with standard deviation, as well as other personal factors such as overall playing style and aversion to risk. When we think of bankroll management, we want to lower our risk of ruin to some certain standard, and for everyone this is different. Demiparadigm, before dsaxton staked him for meth, did a really great post explaining these statistical truths behind bankroll management as well.

You check out your SD and win-rate, decide what risk of ruin you want, plug it all into a formula, and out comes how many buy-ins you should play with at a certain level. That's tailor-made bankroll management, which I thought was discussed in the bankroll management 101 thread, but maybe I was mistaken.

Edit: I found the post Demi made, http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ly-t22364.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

When we think of bankroll management, we want to lower our risk of ruin to some certain standard, and for everyone this is different. Demiparadigm, before dsaxton staked him for meth, did a really great post explaining these statistical truths behind bankroll management as well.

You check out your SD and win-rate, decide what risk of ruin you want, plug it all into a formula, and out comes how many buy-ins you should play with at a certain level. That's tailor-made bankroll management, which I thought was discussed in the bankroll management 101 thread, but maybe I was mistaken.

Edit: I found the post Demi made,
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ly-t22364.html

---

A Simple Way to Calculate Your Personal "Downswing" Stats

I teach stats, both the intro general ed course and calculus-bases prob-stat course for math majors. While Demi's post is certainly mathematically correct, I fear some FTR folks will see all the equations and just puke, rather than opening PT and doing the work with a calculator.

Do this simple exercise: open PT, filter to all hands in the database at your main level, and note your ptBB / 100 win rate. Go to sessions tab and click "more detail" in top right. Write down your Standard Deviation / 100 hands.

Example: me, NL10, 65k hands
win rate: 4.6 ptBB/100
standard deviation: 46 BB/100

Let's use 100 "typical" sessions of 100 hands (since PT uses BB/100 units). We can estimate our earnings by gathering them into the middle 95% (what generally happens) and then outliers: 10k heaters and 10k coolers.

Here's how it works using a simplified formula that's very accurate (the details are below, for the curious):

M = SD / 5

Example: M = 46 / 5 = 9.2

Now get the two endpoints of your interval by taking your winrate and first adding and then subtracting M from it:

Example:
Lower Bound = 4.6 - 9.2 = -4.6
Upper Bound = 4.6 + 9.2 =13.8

This means that over any 10k hands, I can expect my win rate to be between -4.6 ptBB/100 and 13.8 prBB/100 95% of the time. Now here's the kicker: 2.5% of the time I can expect it to be WORSE than -4.6 ptBB/100, and 2.5% of the time I can expect it to be BETTER than 13.8 ptBB/100.

For me, at NL10, a -4.6 ptBB/100 over 10k hands would mean I dropped 460 ptBB's, or $92. And 2.5% of the time I can EXPECT EVEN WORSE!!!

On the bright side, or positive variance, I can expect to be up >13.8 ptBB/100 over 10k hands 2.5% of the time, as well.

Notice two things. First, it's easy to calculate. Second, this illustrates Spoon's point: This is a decent win rate. Imagine for the moment you've moved up and are eking out on 1.5 ptBB/100, with the same variance. Then, the Lower Bound is -7.7 ptBB/100, and over 10k hands you can expect to lose AT LEAST 770 ptBB AT LEAST 2.5% of the times you play 100 sessions of 100 hands (10k for the math challenged).

That's 15.4 buy-ins. And it happens 1/40th of the time to a WINNING player who's on a 10k cooler - playing well, and just experiencing negative variance.

Just run those quick calculations on your own stats, and see what you come up with. And then ask yourself "how much bankroll do I need if I'm taking a 1 in 40 shot at losing 17 buy-ins," or whatever your Lower Bound number (the estimate of your personal 10k cooler damage) turns out to be.

If you think this kind of negative variance doesn't happen, just ask guys like Miffed and Spoon and any other of the folks who've logged 400k hands. Miffed, as I recall, was down nearly 50 buy-ins on a frigid cooler last Fall. Spoon was down 26 buy-ins (or 13, if it was NL200) in January. Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Just to get the math right,the actual calculation is as follows:

Lower Bound = WR - 1.96 * SD / sqrt(n) , where
WR = win rate in ptBB/100
SD = standard deviation in ptBB/100, and
n = number of 100 hand sessions under consideration.

The Upper Bound = WR + 1.96 * SD / sqrt(n)

I used "2", so that 2 / sqrt(100) = 2/10 = 5. This is pretty accurate since I rounded my standard deviation down (it's actually 46.85, not 46).

The summary chart of your personal expectation in poker is this:

Over 40 typical periods of 10k hands, you should expect:

1 cooler at least as bad as your Lower Bound
38 periods between the Lower and Upper Bound
1 heater at least as good as your Upper Bound

The math is simple. If you have 40k hands in your database, or more, you can calculate these statistics easily and accurately, tailored to your game on your site against the villains you face.

One final note. When you move up, remember that your win rate typically goes down. If you have a 4 ptBB/100 at your current level, can you really expect much more than 1.5 ptBB/100 for the first 10k hands at the level above? That lower bound for most players is going to be in the 12 - 18 buy-in range. In 10k hands. Playing winning poker.

Does 40+ buy-ins for moving up seem so "nitty" now? If it does, then actually sit down and do the calculations, dammit!! Playing poker well for the long term is all about managing variance.

Final caveat: it's late, I'm a morning person, and i'm exhausted. I will have to recheck all the math I did in the morning before I'm willing to claim it's 100% accurate. But i'll let y'all know with an edit when I've rechecked everything.

man, its their money
let them do with it what they want

nice post by the way ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

Some stuff

---

Pretty much, yeah. Thanks for doing this because I was going to run through very similar calculations, and I really didn't want to because I'm lazy.

If I have a bankroll of 200 cant I just ist at a 2nl table camp out for AA and then double my roll? Seems a lot easier than all these bankroll calculation mumbojumbo

Doing things on autopilot in poker is probably always -EV.

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProZachNation

If I have a bankroll of 200 cant I just ist at a 2nl table camp out for AA and then double my roll? Seems a lot easier than all these bankroll calculation mumbojumbo

---

Really?

So if you get aces once every 200 hands (you're lucky), that's 4 hours to get aces / table (at 50h/hour), so you should see aces every 15 minutes if you are playing 16 tables (might as well do it right, dont want to be too bored, right?). If it costs you 0.33 cents / hand (blinds 9 handed at 2NL), then that's $2.64 / hour to pay for the blinds. Provided that once in a while people don't notice that you are playing less than 1% of hands and actually push all in - lets say someone does this 25% of the time, and with an average stack of $2.50 (again, probably generous - most people with a $5 stack will be reluctant to push all in to someone playing like that, it would most likely be the $1 or less stacks). And let's say you are an 85% favourite (again, leaning heavily in your favour, should prob be closer to 80% with what they have calling you), that means you should average a win of $1.75. Add that to the average of, say, 6 cents when everyone folds the other 3 of 4 times, that means you would average $0.48 each time you get AA. $0.48 * 4 (each 15 mins, right?) = $1.93 vs $2.64 cost = net profit of ($0.71) per hour.

Nut camping rocks!

(of course, i would assume / hope you're joking.. i just wanted an excuse to put some math in this thread)

And just so people can see it, 3 weeks ago I had 2200, today I hit 1250. I play 50NL so that is about exactly a 20 buyin downswing...


Finally I think it is turning around today though. weeeeeeee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

If you want a hardcore steel muay thai cup that can take shots from a fucking jackhammer and still leave your nuts unrattled and silky smooth, then play with more.

---

Having seen Ong-Bak on TV the other night, that is some imagery I can relate to! (Movie was actually good enough to close down the poker tables for a few hours ;) )

I love Ong-Bak, check out Warrior King as well, awesome film. What is your opinion on multi-tabling and BR management, do you think you should have a larger BR and therefore more buy ins if you plan on 4 or 5 tabling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sil693

I love Ong-Bak, check out Warrior King as well, awesome film. What is your opinion on multi-tabling and BR management, do you think you should have a larger BR and therefore more buy ins if you plan on 4 or 5 tabling?

---

Multi-tabling will affect bankroll management at the point your win-rate starts going down because your average downswing will get bigger. Until you get to like 8 tables of 6-max or 12 tables of full ring, I don't think it's that big of a deal though.

lolololololol...

being way overrolled is for pussies who have fragile egos ;)


if you have a high variance ultra-aggro style however, you may need a larger than "standard" roll due to the natural standard deviations you may encounter.


*ahem* I meen...

how is it to move up tha levels whun they could take lots of the mobnies I has so eeesialy???

I have had multiple 30+BI downswings.

That being said, you sure as hell can use the 20 buy in rule, just make sure you immediately move down once your under 20 BI's. A lot of people don't have that discipline though, so it doesn't work. I for one am one of those people!

Nice post spoon. Question for you- My plan for moving up is as follows: I play 6-8 25 NL tables at once. When my BR hits my comfort zone ( for me = 1050$) I will add one table of 50 nL and have the rest be 25. When I hit 1100 I will add two and so on. If my BR falls to 1000 again I will add no tables of 50 NL until I get back to 1050. In this manner you gradually move into a higher level not jump in all at once and play with scared money. Most of your tables are 25 NL and psychologically you are in you comfort zone which should also apply to your one table of 50 nL. This of couse assumes the two levels play somewhat the same. At higher stakes this might not work but should work fine at lower stakes. Thoughts?

dalai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalai008

Nice post spoon. Question for you- My plan for moving up is as follows: I play 6-8 25 NL tables at once. When my BR hits my comfort zone ( for me = 1050$) I will add one table of 50 nL and have the rest be 25. When I hit 1100 I will add two and so on. If my BR falls to 1000 again I will add no tables of 50 NL until I get back to 1050. In this manner you gradually move into a higher level not jump in all at once and play with scared money. Most of your tables are 25 NL and psychologically you are in you comfort zone which should also apply to your one table of 50 nL. This of couse assumes the two levels play somewhat the same. At higher stakes this might not work but should work fine at lower stakes. Thoughts?

dalai

---

I don't really like the idea of spreading your play over multiple levels at low stakes but I don't really know why. If it works then that's cool. I wish you the best of luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalai008

Nice post spoon. Question for you- My plan for moving up is as follows: I play 6-8 25 NL tables at once. When my BR hits my comfort zone ( for me = 1050$) I will add one table of 50 nL and have the rest be 25. When I hit 1100 I will add two and so on. If my BR falls to 1000 again I will add no tables of 50 NL until I get back to 1050. In this manner you gradually move into a higher level not jump in all at once and play with scared money. Most of your tables are 25 NL and psychologically you are in you comfort zone which should also apply to your one table of 50 nL. This of couse assumes the two levels play somewhat the same. At higher stakes this might not work but should work fine at lower stakes. Thoughts?

dalai

---

I don't really like the idea of spreading your play over multiple levels at low stakes but I don't really know why. If it works then that's cool. I wish you the best of luck.

---

I tried it and didn't like it. That one table occupies too much attention, and the results on that table take all the focus off doing the right thing each time on your other seven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalai008

Nice post spoon. Question for you- My plan for moving up is as follows: I play 6-8 25 NL tables at once. When my BR hits my comfort zone ( for me = 1050$) I will add one table of 50 nL and have the rest be 25. When I hit 1100 I will add two and so on. If my BR falls to 1000 again I will add no tables of 50 NL until I get back to 1050. In this manner you gradually move into a higher level not jump in all at once and play with scared money. Most of your tables are 25 NL and psychologically you are in you comfort zone which should also apply to your one table of 50 nL. This of couse assumes the two levels play somewhat the same. At higher stakes this might not work but should work fine at lower stakes. Thoughts?

dalai

---

I don't really like the idea of spreading your play over multiple levels at low stakes but I don't really know why. If it works then that's cool. I wish you the best of luck.

---

I don't either, psychologically really weird things happen.

I am not sure I agree with "all the focus will be on the one table". The way I envision it less focus will be on that table because only premium hands in position will even be considered thus making most decisions pretty straight forward. Playing suited connectors OOP and calling raises with "speulation hands" will only be considered on the other lower buy in tables. Very few marginal situations will arise because the default option will be to simply fold and wait for a better spot. Leave the rest for the other tables. Almost to the point of nut camping on the one higher stake table. Counter points welcome as always.

dalai

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dalai008

I am not sure I agree with "all the focus will be on the one table". The way I envision it less focus will be on that table because only premium hands in position will even be considered thus making most decisions pretty straight forward. Playing suited connectors OOP and calling raises with "speulation hands" will only be considered on the other lower buy in tables. Very few marginal situations will arise because the default option will be to simply fold and wait for a better spot. Leave the rest for the other tables. Almost to the point of nut camping on the one higher stake table. Counter points welcome as always.

dalai

---

why would you purposefully play as scared money at the next level? you should always try to play the best poker you can, and i f solely nut camping is it, you should certainly stay at 25nl and try to improve.

V Nice Thread

I just want to bump this thread so all the noobies can see it. I just read it for the first time and WOW is all I can say. It is a great thought provoker if nothing else.
I personally am leaning towards being over rolled until I have really mastered my level. I figure what the hell it can't hurt that's for damn sure. After all I have pissed away over 150 BI's that I can remember so what the hell.

when I play on different levels at the same time I start to forget the other level is different so I play the same on all of my tables

so if it works for you, do it
if it doesn't work for you, don't do it

just because someone says it fucks with your head doesn't mean you can't try it

bump

As someone who has practiced rather... "aggressive" BRM on more than a few occasions (10BI not uncommon), I have to say that it usually adds a fair bit of stress to poker leading to suboptimal play.

You also have to be very good at quitting & dropping down, and be ok with that happening much more frequently than if you're playing with more conservative BRM.


edit: but I've actually made it work, so I highly recommend it.

good timing bump, trying to find the discipline and willpower to move back down to 25nl!!

Very salient topic for me right now. I personally agree with Spoon here. 20BI is too little. Until recently I was being as conservative as playing with 40BI at 20nl. However, I've been playing my A game more often recently (tilting like 95% less, studying regularly, making huge folds etc etc) plus I read this: Bankroll Management :Suited Aces and it convinced me that when you're playing good and you have at least 25-30BI (dependent on you) for the stakes above, NOT taking shots is potentially burning money.

hmmmmm interesting (all of the above)...........

20 bi is abso fine if you have high risk tolerance. if you are a tilt monkey or the monies matter to you then obv a higher number of BI is required.

I've said this when this was posted and I'll say it again. Unless you are relying on the monies for income play to your risk tolerance and don't prevent yourself from making craploads with prohibitive br requirements either way. If the games are great at the stake above go for it, and if the games really suck at your reg stakes drop down or just dont play.