BRM: The Invisible Risk

Take shots brah let nits be nits

I think some people think that the more BI BRM the better and I totally disagree, would be good to hear the other side of the argument.

1st: it depends

2nd: it's impossible to know your true winrate on next level.

Originally posted by metza

And more importantly, people think that the more BI your BRM, the less you are risking.

Really? Haven't heard that before. Wouldn't you be risking the same regardless of how much BR you have?

Also, you are not 'risking' potential profit. You are directly losing it.

Some people don't take shots not because they can't beat the next limit:
1. They play scared money when they move up (because of low no. of BIs)
2. They tilt more easily because a downswing at a higher limit hurts a lot more.

Both 1 and 2 will lead to a lower hourly at the higher limit than at the current limit.

You are making the assumption that by moving from NL50 lets say to NL100 you will still be above average in terms of competition against other players.

And therefore you will be a winning player on the level above of what your playing. If that is the case and you can do that then yes I agree that you are loosing potential profit.

BUT:

Most people do not have a huge edge against the next level. As somebody mentiond above you do not know what your winrate will be.

Therefore who can guarantee me that I am sacrificing potential profit and not preserving my current profit by not moving to a level with better players?

I think very aggressive BRM has to be done bettween the levels on NL2 to NL25 where rake is huge.

NL25 and upwards where rake does not change dramatically bettween each next level taking 2-3 buy in shots is fine in my opinion.

Also swings are greater in terms of money when u move up a level and that is a reason why a lot of people choose to be more conservative in terms of BRM the higher they go.

Peace

BRM is not about risking "less". It's about lowering your risk of ruin.

And yes, the more buyins you have in your bankroll, the lower your risk of ruin.

Originally posted by metza
You ARE RISKING POTENTIAL PROFIT for every extra BI in your BRM, as long as you are comfortably beating your current limit.

Hmmmm,
This seems to me to be akin to what accountants call "opportunity cost".
If you have your money in a guaranteed fund at 3%, and there is a non-guaranteed fund available at 5%, then you have an opportunity cost of 2%, and are not realizing the ROI that could be realizing.

But let us turn that argument around.
I the 5% fund has too high a risk then perhaps there is an "opportunity gain" by NOT investing in the riskier fund.

As others point out, your extra BI could just as easily be lost at the upper limit.

If you assume that your win-rate at the next level will be 1/2 of your current win-rate, then the "potential" profit isn't all that much.

The question then, is "Is it worth the risk"

In my case, I have a BR such that I could easily afford NL 25 (100 BI).
However, I have yet to be successful at NL25 -- after 25K hands I have < 0 win-rate.

I don't think I'm SKILLED enough for NL 25 yet. (talk to me again at the end of May)
In that case I would be foolish to play NL 25.

OTOH, perhaps I'm just chicken.

Peace,
--VS

I think you should deffinately be taking shots but table selecting well so you don't get owned you just need to know when to move back down.

Obviously we are talking about winning players here. Also If grinding is not your main income whats the big deal?

I think skill at a particular stake > BRM. That doesn't mean 5 BIs is enough. after a minimum required 25 BI BRM its more dependent on the skill you have to play the next stake.

I agree with the OP, when people use too conservative a BRM they forgo the opportunity cost that might lead to a higher win rate.

As far as the risk goes well there are ways to quantify or atleast estimate that.

The risk of ruin has 3 variables, BR, win rate and std dev. The std dev is the basic risk element which doesn't chage a lot as you move up one limit, completely out of your hands. The win rate is in your hands to some extent which is where win rate comes in and BR is totally in your hands.

OP assumed that you have like 10 bb/100 and when you move up your win rate drops to about 7 bb/100. If your true win rate at your stake really is close to 10 bb/100 then its safe to say it won't drop a lot all of a sudden to like 3 bb/100. I'm not saying in the short run, I mean in the long run and BR will take care that you reach the long run.

Just play around with some figures in thr RoR equation and you'll have a fair idea of when to move up a stake, thats kinda how I move up cause then you're not just looking at BR, your estimating all three variables and getting a much better idea of the risk undertaken.

Also RoR assumes you play the same stake and don't move down which is not true practically so the risk is even less.

In short, if you're doing well at a particular limit, you don't have to be hell bent to achieve your standard BR size to take a shot.

Originally posted by maheepsangari
Also RoR assumes you play the same stake and don't move down which is not true practically so the risk is even less.

This is also a very valid point.

Originally posted by w34z3l
BRM is not about risking "less". It's about lowering your risk of ruin.

And yes, the more buyins you have in your bankroll, the lower your risk of ruin.

This