Road to Nowhere

    • brett1985
      brett1985
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.10.2007 Posts: 33
      The title kind of sums up my poker career thus far. I started playing in June with friends, knowing nothing about the game. Since then I have bought books, watched strategy videos and read websites for information on poker.

      I started on ***poker with just a $10 deposit. After winning a freeroll $50 and coming top ten in several more I built up my bankroll. After several sit and goes it hit a peak of $152

      I then did a promotion on CDPoker and got $100 free. Playing sit and goes I managed to hit $200 before a mixture of bad beats and tilt meant I lost it all. That was a learning experience and playing is the best way to learn.

      Then I joined here at PokerStrategy.com, got the $50 and started out with SSS. After Hitting a peak of $105 I dropped to $73. I would recommend this strategy to any beginner but for me I just wanted to build a bankroll and I have found that efficiency wise this strategy wasn't getting me to the place I wanted to be even playing 12 tables flawlessly.

      Ideally I want to be able to mix it playing $5 buyin sit and goes and when my bankroll can sustain it, $10, $20 and $50. Without wishing to sound arrogant I feel I have the ability to make these profitable but simply don't have the bankroll to overcome any nasty variance at these levels. Nonetheless I have decided to take my $90 on party poker and play some $10 buyins hoping to make some real progress.

      Like the title says I feel that for a while I have been going nowhere in terms of bankroll especially in proportion to the amount of theory I have absorbed. I need a breakthrough!
  • 10 replies
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      really bad idea. as you said the variance on SnG is vicious and you do need the required 50 buy-ins to be able to pull it off.

      Or else a couple of bad beats will really just get you
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Originally posted by brett1985
      Playing sit and goes I managed to hit $200 before a mixture of bad beats and tilt meant I lost it all. That was a learning experience and playing is the best way to learn.
      Originally posted by brett1985
      Then I joined here at PokerStrategy.com, got the $50 and started out with SSS. After Hitting a peak of $105 I dropped to $73. I would recommend this strategy to any beginner but for me I just wanted to build a bankroll and I have found that efficiency wise this strategy wasn't getting me to the place I wanted to be .....Nonetheless I have decided to take my $90 on party poker and play some $10 buyins hoping to make some real progress.
      I'm sorry but I don't think that you learned anything. Stick tu the rules of the bankroll management and be patient. You will move up if you work on your game as well as on your psychological skills. You want to win fast and big money, but if you only have 9 buy-ins I'm sure that you will be bankrupt very soon. I hope that this post protects you against bankruptcy. But I'm not sure...

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • aaccw
      aaccw
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.07.2007 Posts: 55
      Originally posted by chenny8888
      really bad idea. as you said the variance on SnG is vicious and you do need the required 50 buy-ins to be able to pull it off.

      Or else a couple of bad beats will really just get you

      I think I'll stick my spoon in the soup here as I've been commenting about aggressive bankroll management in my own news thread. I agree with chenny8888. Tournament variance is really high and the ability to survive 50 buy-ins through the levels you are gonna play is very probably correct should the worst case scenario become a reality.

      Having said that I can't say nothing else but you must really take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself is this money you are putting at play a critical resource for you. I mean it will drive you to full tilt very fast once you go into a downswing unless you are really up to counting at which point you need to step down to a lower level if need be.

      You need to evaluate your position each time you step away from the tables before entering there again. A drop requiring downgrading through one level can easily happen inside 100 to 200 hands. It's a constant balancing operation - nothing less.

      I took the liberty of calculating out how you should be prepared to go about this within the SnG context:

      As said the basic assumption is the need to survive 50 buy-ins. I have estimated your standard deviation is close to normal ~ 90 bb

      *EDIT: Content removed*

      So... If you start at NL200 you will be able to possibly survive without putting in any more money if your bankroll is a minimum of USD1540. Planning this with USD 100 is pure insanity. I don't want to tell this in a malicious way, but I definately feel you need the realistic facts about what you are getting yourself into.

      So... Starting at NL200 you need to be prepared to step down until you are down somewhere at midrange NL2 and still have 5 buy-ins left. Easy to say, but surely is a long and trying road...

      Should you still consider, I wish you a good run - remember though... it's got nothing to do with luck.

      :spade: wannabe
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Hi aaccw!

      Besides the fact that your calculations are absolutely nonsense, brett1985 was talking about SNGs and not about cash games.

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • aaccw
      aaccw
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.07.2007 Posts: 55
      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      Hi aaccw!

      Besides the fact that your calculations are absolutely nonsense, brett1985 was talking about SNGs and not about cash games.

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
      Can you be so kind and present a proper counter calculation instead of telling it's pure nonsense. Statistics are eligible at tournaments as well as cash tables.

      :spade: wannabe
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      i'd imagine the statistics are purely from experience comparing records of many different SnG players. While 50 BI can be seen as a conservative value, worst case scenario can bring you very very close to that value.. I've had a -20BI streak before on what I regard to be a VERY soft level at the site I played at...

      a graph of my progress, and note that this is 5+.5 tournaments... my ROI is a bit above 50%, but the variance is hideous:




      And this is from me. Like I said my ROI is ~50% overall. If your ROI was 10% or thereabouts, a larger swing is obviously very very possible. Also if you've been known to go on tilt and keep playing that will also have a very negative effect. Believe me, losing 10 tournaments in a row is depressing.
    • brett1985
      brett1985
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.10.2007 Posts: 33
      Puschkin81

      I am mainly in agreement with regards to the principles of bankroll management.

      My real problem is my lack of belief in the worth of what I am doing.

      If I use proper bankroll management I could still go bust. For example I experienced a $32 downswing with SSS. Given that you only start of $50 thats pretty catastrophic.

      12000k hands and a profit of $23 so far. My first target is $150 to move up in stakes. So on current progress 36k more hands? However the threat of playing 36k hands and ending up on $0 is also possible.

      I am told to be patient and stick to bankroll management and whilst that is valuable advice these strategies really push people to the limit of what they find reasonable. The possibility of going broke on a time consuming low rewards strategy is off putting.

      No doubt if I had a 20k bankroll I would not start playing $2000 buyin tournaments. Yet the difference with $60 is that it isn't a meaningful amount yet and its hard to even put a value on it in terms of future worth. I will just have to take your word for it and persist.
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Originally posted by aaccw

      Downswing Catastrophy Survival
      Catastrophy: -50 Buy-Ins by 90 bb (your standard deviation)
      Your survival reserve: 5.222222222 Buy-Ins
      Your minimum bankroll 10 Buy-Ins -55.22222222 of buy-ins survived

      Downswing starting point 1540 Your total assets (Current minimum + 1 buy-In)
      Your current level 200 NL
      1st Drop down -140 = -0.777777778 Buy-Ins
      Switch down level 1400 Minimum bankroll

      Downswing continues @ 1400 Your assets at downgrading
      Your current level 100 NL.....
      90BB....why?
      "survival reserve"......5.222222222222222222222222222222222 buy ins....why?
      Downsswing starting point...1540....brett1985 was talking about $90...?!
      1st drop down.... -140......why?
      .....
      ....
      and so on.

      Your calculations are based on arbitrary assumptions which don't make sense at all. That's why I said they are nonsense.

      Anyway:

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • aaccw
      aaccw
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.07.2007 Posts: 55
      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      90BB....why?
      As I didn't know what kind of a standard deviation we are dealing with I used the normally encountered for no-limit games.

      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      "survival reserve"......5.222222222222222222222222222222222 buy ins....why?
      At NL2 this example shows the player would still have a 5.2 buy-ins reserve to continue playing at that very level.

      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      Downsswing starting point...1540....brett1985 was talking about $90...?!
      1st drop down.... -140......why?
      This calculation was an example for shouwing how far from the reality USD90 is to be able to use an agressive bankroll management system based at 10 buy-ins.



      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      Your calculations are based on arbitrary assumptions which don't make sense at all. That's why I said they are nonsense.

      Anyway:

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
      Well, the assumptions are as valid as any of yours would be, naturally it would be better to use known true values. The calculation was presented as an example.

      Thank's for your response tho.

      :spade: wannabe
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Originally posted by aaccw
      As I didn't know what kind of a standard deviation we are dealing with ....
      At NL2 this example shows....This calculation was an example....
      Originally posted by Puschkin81
      Your calculations are based on arbitrary assumptions...