I like poker, lets talk poker!

For people who play the game purely on a recreational basis, there is absolutely no need for them to use BRM. Just let them deposit $200 and spew it away or turn it into $2000 on NL200 or something.

More serious players (can still be recreational like pointed out by others) should definitely use some sort of BRM though, imo.

For anyone starting out and looking to climb up in stakes, I think it would be a mistake to be super conservative with their BRM. Using 25 or 30 BI is probably more than enough. Using anything more than this usually only prevents you from improving at a good pace. You may have to move up and down a bit more often, but there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'd say you can learn quite a lot from moving up and down the stakes.

There's some people that use 50 or sometimes even more BI when they play NL5 or something. I'd say that's just wrong in every way imaginable.

For anyone looking to make a living off of playing poker, they probably should use a very conservative BRM. I don't make a living playing poker though (yet ) so I won't comment any further on that.

I think 25-30BI when you are moving up. I'm not sure when to change it though. Problem is that you can keep moving up and you don't want to play at nl500 w/ a 25BI BR. Right now I'm playing nl20 and I'm very happy with my 25BI's. And I'm shooting nl50 when I have somewhere between 25-30BI without being concerned.

As a pro (or if you play for a living) I don't think you can go to wrong with a very conservative BRM. These guys are happy on the limit they're playing on so they don't have to move up and they don't want to bust their roll. What BRM is used you can probably tell us Pleno ♦

I'd say even purely recreational player should have a few bullets. I'd imagine it isn't much fun if you sit down for an hour or so of gambling it up and are forced to quit after few mins.

I haven't much of an opinion on brm for pros, because I have little clue as to how a pro thinks about it, but I should imagine a pro being nitty and perhaps having enough to live from for a year or so just starting out?

Given that there are as many different reasons for recreational players to play as there are players, it seems to me to be a bit difficult to nail down whether they should consider brm or not.

We can't say they should use X or Y brm so they can move up because many don't or wont be moving up. Some go broke and some sit there for ever at the same limit just enjoying playing. I used to watch a very good rec reg at 5CD, sitting at play money because he liked to chat without stress.

In a similar vein, there are those who love to play freerolls; again no brm needed there.

For those trying to move up then fair enough, consider brm; but only if you need to. If going broke and starting again isn't a problem why bother with brm?

Anyway, this was a bit rushed so probably makes little sense without a more in-depth approach. Sorry 'bout that.

I decided that I may do a video each week speaking about all of the topics in the thread rather than posting each day.

So I post a question, people discuss and say what they think then at the end of the week I do a video blog talking about the 7 topics.

Really nice input so far chaps!

Originally posted by pleno1
Day 2, Bankroll Management. What do you think is a good bankroll management for a recreational player and for a professional player and what circumstances could change the approach?

Recreational player: really, whatever they can afford to play with (if we're talking the classic "fish"). I don't mean that in a "PUT ALL YOUR CASH ONLINE" way, but if you make $50k a year from your job and can afford to put $500 on Stars a month or play a few live tourneys a year then go for it. Treat poker as you do any other expense or hobby (meals, cinema, drinks, etc).

Professional player: depends so much on the game (more BI needed for PLO than NL, obv) and the player. Single dude with no dependants? You can probably be more lax with your BRM, especially if you're a rakeback grinder at smaller stakes. Father of three with a family to support? Hundreds of buy-ins plus savings.

Day 3

Should players be able to change ther screen names and if so how often should they be able to do it?

yes absolutely, decent way to counter datamining (which most rooms disallow but hard to do much about it) and if you're like me you get bored of your screen name sometimes ♦
it also makes the game slightly less reliant on stats (which i think is a good thing)

once per something like 3-12 months sounds fine.

I'd like to see that. Think new unibet is gonna have good system regarding that. Frequent name changes allowed and you can save up times allowed to do that.

Not sure what the time frame will be exactly, but if it's gonna work out in a way that rec players can more or less change their SN every time they want to play (since they don't play daily) while regs have to keep their names for 10k+ hands or so, it'd be perfect imo.

Yes in my opinion it would be brilliant.
It would like already mentioned counter datamining and It would give a fresh wind into the software and I am bored of my name too

Major french poker room Winamax will allow player to change their screen name once in 6 months

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/winamax-players-can-now-change-screen-names-every-six-months-02-01/

Does changing screen name helps bad players?

I like Tommy Angelos 20/40/80 recommendation for minimum BRM:

20bi for Cash --- 40bi for SnG --- 80bi for MTTs.

These are absolute minimums for me.

It works for me - its good enough to ensure I don't go broke before moving down, and I still see significant increases in my roll. It allows me to take shots or play a slightly higher or special MTT once in a while. It's also easy to remember!

However, Angelo wrote this book just after Moneymaker won, and with low - medium stakes full ring cash games in mind. Since then, most cash players stick to 6max where the variance is higher and players are more aggressive.

So...

I like to have 30bi for 6max cash

I don't (or very rarely) play SnGs

80bi seems sound for anything up to $55 MTTs

A pro (or if I was to become a pro) would probably like to double my formula, but I'm only guessing/reasoning.

BTW, I'm a recreational player with very modest results and no significant stats to back any of this up!

Day 3: No! For the same reason you can't wear a mask at the WSOP. Poker is about info, and all info (at any reasonable standard of game) is based on identity.

We should, however, be able to change our fucking ***ing shitbag avatars on PokerStars!!!!! There's no good reason for them to not allow it!!!

It bothers me and I don't know why.

Originally posted by CreamyGoodness

We should, however, be able to change our fucking ***ing shitbag avatars on PokerStars!!!!! There's no good reason for them to not allow it!!!

It bothers me and I don't know why.

You can change it.

You can wear a mask on WSOP, remember Phil Laak?

Day 3: changing aliases is de facto legal on poker networks (via playing at different skins), I like it and don't think independent sites (P*, FTP, PKR, Unibet,...) should put players at a disadvantage by not allowing to switch names. Of course it would make collusion less detectable, and HS regs would love to rotate aliases to void advanced reads on them, but there's no need to allow the change to everyone.

E.g. it seems OK to allow everyone below Platinumstar / Diamond Edge to change the identity automatically once in a while, but make alias changes of other (high volume) players subject to manual approval, motivating it by the fact that this kind of volume usually means that the player has become a 'pro' and is advised to 'go public' and be renowned under a permanent alias. This way, colluders will have to play low volume to stay (relatively) under the radar, causing less damage to the ecosystem, while occasional high stake fish with high volume can still be allowed, as an exception, to change the identity to get protection.

Datamining is not that harmful to high volume regs because they sit at a lot of tables and one will get their stats fast anyway, sitting at all the same tables. (It's safe to say that I don't understand how buying HHs is worth the money - there are plenty of other ways to tell a good reg from a fish very fast.)

I don't know, for a lot of players it seems that their SN is also a bit of proof that they're trustworthy when selling action/ transferring money

Day 3: If all poker rooms had anonymous tables then there would be no need for changing usernames, right?

Think this is the way forward, also without HUDs as well because that is the way it should be IMO.

I suppose changing screen names could mess up the ranking lists people are so fond of but I don't really know much about that, I haven't been top ranking for while now.

It would give recreational players a bit of fun and some perceived anonymity but I can recognize some players on anon tables as well anyway, having played them for quite some time.

I wonder how staking would be tracked but I know little about that either although at face value it would appear to open the door to abuse.

I think poker is on its last legs. The standard of play is now so high, only regs play, just passing the money around and eventually being raked away. there are less and less fish and no new fish signing up because even fish aren't stupid,they know the games are much tougher and quit after losing a few deposits. Eventually sites won"t be able to attract new players, all the regs will leave or run out of money, sites will be less and less populated. I give it 5-10 years