Proof that a 20x bankroll is not enough.

[Aerenel]

I was playing today at .05/.10, and had 16 buyins left in my bankroll. I'd been in a nasty rut for a few days - losing about 6 buyins against the odds and 2 to being outplayed/outheld. I'm multitabling for hours, and luckily get dealt KK 4 times total. I'm fortunate enouh to get my money in preflop, 2x headsup, 2x 3-handed.

1st: Me: KK, Fish A: QTo.
AKJ hits to bust me.
2nd: Me: KK, Fish A: JJ, Fish B: 99
9 hits to bust me and Fish A.
3rd: Me: KK, Fish A: 75s, Fish B: 76o
5689 hits to let them split and bust me.
4th: Me: KK, Fish A: QJs
The flush hits to bust me.

I go on tilt and lose another buyin postflop before quitting for the day. Last week I was confident I could have a bankroll for the next level within a few weeks. Now I'm sitting on a bankroll barely big enough to play .05/.10 safely, and I'm going to take a few days break just to get off tilt.

The point of this rant is that I think at microstakes a 20x bankroll is not enough. If you ever hit a downswing like the one I am experiencing, you run too much of a risk of going broke. I think at low/mid stakes such as .50/$1 or $1/$2, 20x is enough, but the unbelievable variance at micro stakes should warrant at least a 30-40x bankroll.

What do you think?

[bigspenda73]

Welcome to FTR

Not to be rude but a large downswing at the micros is not all variance. You need to evaluate your plays and make sure you are playing good solid ABC poker at these levels. Good luck at the tables.

[swiggidy]

First, welcome to FTR!!!

The point of this rant is that I think at microstakes a 20x bankroll is not enough. If you ever hit a downswing like the one I am experiencing, you run too much of a risk of going broke. I think at low/mid stakes such as .50/$1 or $1/$2, 20x is enough, but the unbelievable variance at micro stakes should warrant at least a 30-40x bankroll.

What do you think?

I think this is absurd. Why would you need a bigger bankroll at the lower stakes than the higher stakes? At higher stakes you are pushing smaller edges, thus should expect more variance. Above 100NL some people say 20x isn't enough.

You seriously got these all-in pre-flop? If so you'll bounce back in no time. If the money went in post-flop maybe there is a leak?

Assuming pre-flop
1: 86% vs 14% - sucks
2: 67% vs 18% vs 16% - one out of 3 times you loose
3: 71% vs 16% vs 13% - one out of 4 times you loose
4: 82% vs 18%

All 4 is very unlikely (0.2%), but individually they happen

[Aerenel]

I admit I have several leaks.

If I hit TPTK or a set and there's a flush/straight draw, I'll often make large, typically pot sized bets to protect it. Then, when I am inevitably called and called on another pot sized bet on the turn, and the flush/straight hits on the river, I pay off the chaser about half the time.

I need to work on my ability to give up those hands, and also to evaluate better, when I have TPTK/2pair and am reraised on an uncoordinated flop, whether the person is on a bluff or made their set.

Those are the biggest leaks I can notice, I have a hard time giving up my made hands, since I enter few pots (typically about 20%). But in the hands I showed on the first post, where I think I was like a 3:1 or 4:1 favorite each time I got my money in, they hit and there was nothing I could have done about it.

So if you hit a downswing b/c of leaks like mine, and at the same time get hit against the odds with preflop hands like mine, then you're facing a serious downswing that reduces your bankroll to unsafe levels, which is why I'm thinking of build my bankroll to 30x before moving up to the next level.

[swiggidy]

So they were all pre-flop? That sucks.

20x is regarded as the minimum. The important part is not being afraid of loosing the money in front of you.

It's been awhile since I studied BR stuff, but I would imagine part of 20x buy-ins is that if you got down to 10x, you could move down a level, then have 20x for that level.

If you are more comfortable with 30x then by all means use 30x.

[Aerenel]

I think this is absurd. Why would you need a bigger bankroll at the lower stakes than the higher stakes? At higher stakes you are pushing smaller edges, thus should expect more variance. Above 100NL some people say 20x isn't enough.

I suppose you are right. My suggestion about higher bankrolls at lower limits could be chalked up to tilt.

Assuming pre-flop
1: 86% vs 14% - sucks
2: 67% vs 18% vs 16% - one out of 3 times you loose
3: 71% vs 16% vs 13% - one out of 4 times you loose
4: 82% vs 18%

All 4 is very unlikely (0.2%), but individually they happen

Yes, they were all preflop.

I don't know if looking at it all-together is accurate, since each hand is individual and each hand has separate odds. Isn't that the same as saying I didn't hit my 3:1 flush draw the last 6 times, so I have to hit it this time? Which is clearly a case of the gambler's fallacy.

[LeFou]

You don't need to pot the turn to take away drawing odds. Halfpot will do, and will have you feeling less committed when the scare card does appear.

If the rest of your game is solid, a few killer beats won't ruin you, because you made (e.g.) $22 instead of $16 on those last 10 pots you dragged.

Welcome.

[swiggidy]

I don't know if looking at it all-together is accurate, since each hand is individual and each hand has separate odds. Isn't that the same as saying I didn't hit my 3:1 flush draw the last 6 times, so I have to hit it this time? Which is clearly a case of the gambler's fallacy.

In the I "holly fuck that's random" sense it's accurate.

What I meant is; if people keep stacking off with you pre-flop when you have KK, you will turn a huge profit

[Aerenel]

Thanks for the confidence booster. I'm still going to spend some time away from the table though, just to relax. It's only micro stakes, and I shouldn't be getting as wound up as I am.

Also, thanks for the tip on the turn bets against flush draws. I knew a half-pot would still be profitable, but I always figured if I could get a call from someone then I'd be maximizing my winnings. But in my case, where I will still pay off the chaser half the time, it would be better to have less investment in the pot so it will be easier to get away from it.

[Pelion]

I don't know if looking at it all-together is accurate, since each hand is individual and each hand has separate odds. Isn't that the same as saying I didn't hit my 3:1 flush draw the last 6 times, so I have to hit it this time? Which is clearly a case of the gambler's fallacy.

No Sir it is not. If you are tossing a coin 100 times and talking about losing 99

a) before it happens

Saying losing 99 out of 100 would be rediculously unlikely

is fine

b) After losing 99 out of 100 saying

Well Obviously I have to win the next one or life is rigged

Is silly.


Hes saying that most people who are losing this badly at these stakes are actually making some (or alot) of poor plays. This isnt necessarily the case but it usually is. If it is in fact true that you are just getting insanely unlucky then hopefully it will even out and you will become profitable. Even so Id write a will just incase.

[bantam222]

1st: Me: KK, Fish A: QTo.
AKJ hits to bust me.
2nd: Me: KK, Fish A: JJ, Fish B: 99
9 hits to bust me and Fish A.
3rd: Me: KK, Fish A: 75s, Fish B: 76o
5689 hits to let them split and bust me.
4th: Me: KK, Fish A: QJs
The flush hits to bust me.

But are you forgetting all the times your hand held PF? Or when you even sucked out yourself? you aren't telling me those are your only 4 significant pots


Oh yeah, and it isn't a bankroll if you aren't a winning player, if the worst player in the world was giving 1000 buy ins, he would eventually lose it all.

[Aerenel]

But are you forgetting all the times your hand held PF? Or when you even sucked out yourself? you aren't telling me those are your only 4 significant pots.

I did forget to mention those. I got dealt AA once and played it postflop for a win. But other than the hand with AA, I only got dealt big pairs those times (short session, mainly because I was on tilt and stopped). I don't think I sucked out on any hands in that session, and that's because I try to stay TAG, I am generally on a made flop hand playing against draws. Since I didn't play many hands that session, there weren't many times that someone flopped a better hand against me.

I crunched the numbers on my total hands in the session, and it looks like I did in fact hit great positive variance on getting dealt them. But terrible negative variance in having them beat after going preflop.

Oh yeah, and it isn't a bankroll if you aren't a winning player, if the worst player in the world was giving 1000 buy ins, he would eventually lose it all.

So true, and since I've just recently registered with FTR I haven't given any history. I've been playing online for about 9 months now, but was a losing player the first 6 months. In the last few months I've gotten heavier on improving my play, reading poker books, and of course FTR, and my records have shown solid results. The first blow to those results, I suppose, is what set me off. But that's the whole reason behind the bankroll idea, and solid play will always win out in the end.

And I want to thank everyone so far for being so responsive! I didn't realize how active the boards were here.

[donkbee]

20x is regarded as the minimum.

QFT

[Miffed22001]

If you go broke with 20 buy ins at anything lower than 100nl you arent playing good poker.
Its not really an arguement either.

Playing with 16 was perhaps a little dangerous if you are running bad but really you should be able to beat these players without just getting aa/kk all in preflop.

[Iwind]

Agreed, for new players who don't have such a huge edge over the field down there 20 might not be enough though. The 20x would be for a player beating the game for a decent winrate. At higher stakes, even the best players have a much lower winrate, thus variance is higher and more buyins are needed, it also depends on how aggressive the games are. I mean there are days were I win all the AKvsQQ/JJ all ins, and days were I loose them all.

[andy-akb]

If you go broke with 20 buy ins at anything lower than 100nl you arent playing good poker.
Its not really an arguement either.

Playing with 16 was perhaps a little dangerous if you are running bad but really you should be able to beat these players without just getting aa/kk all in preflop.

Having gone through a 25 buyin "downswing" at 200/100nl, I disagree with your statement.

Going broke at any stake does not simply mean you arent playing good poker, it means you have no bankroll management. If you are willing to move down then you shouldnt go broke with a 20 buyin bankroll [at the higher stakes its a little different but again if you move down, you shouldnt go broke although at those stakes youd be moving up and down all the time with all the swings they generate]. At below 100nl yea, you probably arent that great if you drop 20 buyins, but a worse player could stay afloat with proper management. Again, it doesnt have anything to do specifically with your ability to play poker although your ability does contribute to it.

To say that you should change your requirements based on how you are "running" is to not understand variance.
It's not really an argument either.

Am I arguing semantics? Maybe; however, making those blanket statements that aren't correct even if just on a technical level doesn't help much, especially when posted in a beginner's forum.

[spoonitnow]

If you go broke with 20 buy ins at anything lower than 100nl you arent playing good poker.
Its not really an arguement either.

Playing with 16 was perhaps a little dangerous if you are running bad but really you should be able to beat these players without just getting aa/kk all in preflop.

Having gone through a 25 buyin "downswing" at 200/100nl, I disagree with your statement.

Going broke at any stake does not simply mean you arent playing good poker, it means you have no bankroll management. If you are willing to move down then you shouldnt go broke with a 20 buyin bankroll [at the higher stakes its a little different but again if you move down, you shouldnt go broke although at those stakes youd be moving up and down all the time with all the swings they generate]. At below 100nl yea, you probably arent that great if you drop 20 buyins, but a worse player could stay afloat with proper management. Again, it doesnt have anything to do specifically with your ability to play poker although your ability does contribute to it.

To say that you should change your requirements based on how you are "running" is to not understand variance.
It's not really an argument either.

Am I arguing semantics? Maybe; however, making those blanket statements that aren't correct even if just on a technical level doesn't help much, especially when posted in a beginner's forum.

I think Miff means that 16 can run it close if you happen to run bad from this point forward, not like 16 buyins is too close if you are in the midddle of running bad and will continue to.

[Aerenel]

If you go broke with 20 buy ins at anything lower than 100nl you arent playing good poker.
Its not really an arguement either.

Playing with 16 was perhaps a little dangerous if you are running bad but really you should be able to beat these players without just getting aa/kk all in preflop.

I agree with you now. I am guilty of at least two mistakes:

(1) I cashed out half my bankroll last week, because I wanted to recover some of my investment at the site. In hindsight, the difference was really only pyschological, and bad bankroll management at that. If you build your roll up that high, then you should take a stab at the next level up, where your profits could increase dramatically and make the investment return faster. This was a bad move.

(2) After hitting the downswing I went on extreme tilt and only remembered that one terrible session (but you have to admit from the description, it was pretty bad). I consciously ignored all the hours I had logged building my roll up to where I cashed out before. This was bad self-evaluation.

I cleared my head and decided to come back today for a few hour session. Because I consciously reminded myself that I had built a 10x roll up to ~30x, and to just continue with the same play that got me there in the first place, I was able to stay off tilt. In summary, I played well and had a bigger winning session than usual.

Not looking for a pat on the back here, but am trying to illustrate how maintaing a good psychology (is that the right word?) can bring all the other aspects of good play in line, especially for other players who get in my situation.

Lastly, I've decided to stick to a 30x buyin. This probably will not be necessary at the micros as long as I don't cash out again, but I think it makes me play completely worry free, whereas for some reason 20x didn't. This also enables me to dabble, sparingly of course, in a few games at the next limit up if I choose to. I still advocate this size of bankroll for players at micros looking to level up.

[sejje]

Going broke at any stake does not simply mean you arent playing good poker, it means you have no bankroll management.

It means both. And if it's at the smallest stake, then what more could you have done to manage your bankroll?

[jackvance]

The point of this rant is that I think at microstakes a 20x bankroll is not enough. If you ever hit a downswing like the one I am experiencing, you run too much of a risk of going broke. I think at low/mid stakes such as .50/$1 or $1/$2, 20x is enough, but the unbelievable variance at micro stakes should warrant at least a 30-40x bankroll.

What do you think?

I think it's the other way around. At the micro stakes, your chances of getting paid off when you hit your hands are sooo much higher than at higher stakes, that you need less of a BR to be able to cope. Bad beats aside, you're not talking about all the other hands you were in. Putting in a lot of bad money when behind, calling down when obviously beat, and not maximizing value when you are ahead (because you're scared of getting sucked out on or running into yet another set) is what makes it or breaks it.

A good player would really need the most rotten luck in the world to go broke on a decent BR in the lower stakes.

[Miffed22001]

Variance is an easy card to play when you run like dog shit. The fact of the matter is that i find i can lose a huge hand to variance then tilt off two further buyins playing shitty poker afterwards and blame it all on variance. Im assuming we have all been there.
If your bankroll is of the correct size, a little tilt probably wont affect you anyways.
Saying that, more often than not variance = a bad beat then some tilt to most people who complain of variance. When youve played 40k hands and broken even, ill accept variance is beating your arse hard and agree with you otherwise its probably variance+tilt that has equalled your loses IMO
Saying that, spoon was right when i mentioned that running bad on 16buyins = moving down or reloading the br, no matter what stakes you play.
Downswings often force you to move down stakes thats the whole point. SO moving down even at 10nl shouldnt be beyond you.
Saying that, their should be enough oppertunities for you to make cash versus horrible opponents anyway so running bad should be tough to do, but certainly id agree if you say 10nl can be a crapshoot at times, becasue ive played there too and have seen it.
Variance is easy to play, but the fact is that most of us havent seen how variance can really affect you over a number of hands like 30-50k...