Stack size & bankroll management

[Moradis]

Hi guys, I've got a question about stack size how it impacts your bankroll strategy.

I was on a particularly soft table last night & the cards were generous. I got my stack up to 5 buyins (nl$20 with my stack being $100) with some particularly loose maniacs acting like atm machines.

When going from $50 to $100 I was in a real bind as to whether I should get off or stay.

My heart is saying "get out now & bank this" but the table was so soft I didn't want to leave. I knew the players at the table were maniac fish & there were no regs, just nutters.

My thoughts about leaving were due to bankroll impact.

My bankroll strategy is to remain >20 buyins from the limit I am playing (dropping down if I go under it). It works well & means I don't go busto - the best early learning I had!

If I have 5 buyins on one table, I am effectively committing too much potential variance to my bankroll. The size of my stack meant I was committing 17% of the roll to this particular table. I should only be putting in 3% - 5%.

Since the idea of bankroll management is to reduce variance, I felt I should get out.

On the other side, my actual investment in the table was only $20 - so was I committing only this amount to impact my role at that time.

What's the correct way of thinking?

I couldn't work it out last night so instead I set myself a time based limit & got out when that was up - which was nice as in the 15 minutes I stacked a manic again walking off with 7 buy in profit off the table. (In case you get a bad idea I couldn't have been considered a rat-hole player as I had put in over 200 hands on the table and they had ample chance to get it back - instead they just gave me more )

Can someone please explain to me how to consider these scenarios? (nice scenario for a change)

[rpm]

how deep were they all? if they were just $20 deep to your $100 then you're only risking what you normally buy-in for anyway. i've not read much on this myself, but i'd personally stick around unless the $ amount i had on the table was causing me to play sub-optimally.

Since the idea of bankroll management is to reduce variance, I felt I should get out.

not really. the idea of proper bankroll management is to reduce your risk of ruin. your playing style/game choice/table selection/actual winrate will determine your variance.

[Nekrogovner]

What he said. You aren't risking 5 buyins on the table if the largest stack any other player has is only one buyin, because you simply can't lose more then one buyin. And then, even if someone doubles up on you, so you now have 80$ and he has 40$, how often do you think you will commit your stack vs that player in marginal situations? My bet is, you ain't going too far without set at least, unless you have some sick read on a guy.

[Icanhastreebet]

Suck it up and gamble unless you are terrible deep but 17% of your roll on 1 table is a lot so I'd probably leave unless I had position on these maniacs.

[bikes]

man i feel like if you had position on these people this is a pretty big opportunity for a giant roll boost. if not meh i am indifferent. being 500bb deep is a situation not a lot of people are comfortable with oop against maniacs

[Moradis]

Thanks for the feedback.

I now get how to view it. The risk is whoever is the next biggest stack. When I was looking to leave there were 2 others who were 250 deep and the maniac was still 350 deep. I was pretty sure I could bust the maniac if I was patient hence hung around. 15 mins later I busted him and then felt it was time to bank it. The other two players had position on me and were bad, but not complete morons like the maniac

Thanks for the advice.