Need bankroll management advice

    • ZeMammuth
      ZeMammuth
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2008 Posts: 704
      Hey guys, my bankroll is currently at 220 dollars and i've been multitabling 20+ tables on NL 5 full ring. According to the 25 buy in rule, would it be safe to play the same way on NL 10? If I choose to do it when I reach 250 dollars, when should I move down limits if I start losing and go back to NL 5, when I have 125 dollars? It's kind of confusing, because I might lose like one buy in on NL 10 and go down to 240 dollars, similar to what I already have, it kind of implies I could safely be playing NL 10 now.
  • 24 replies
    • NightFrostaSS
      NightFrostaSS
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.10.2008 Posts: 5,255
      Move up when reach 250 move down when reach 200. And obv reduce the amount of tables you play when moving up until you get comfortable with the new level.
    • TheBu11d0g
      TheBu11d0g
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.07.2008 Posts: 2,019
      Hello NickSeraphim,

      I would recommend that you use the 25 Buy-In rule for moving up as well for moving down a limit if needs must.

      So in your case:

      Move up to NL10 when your bankroll reaches at least $250

      Move back down to NL5 if your bankroll drops to $125

      Kind Regards,
      -Steve
    • PocketAcesJohn
      PocketAcesJohn
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.06.2008 Posts: 1,116
      LMFAO!!!!!....I'm sorry you like 20 table and you use 25BI BRM??? FORGET IT!!!!....50BI MININUM if you're playing that many tables.
    • PocketAcesJohn
      PocketAcesJohn
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.06.2008 Posts: 1,116
      Originally posted by TheBu11d0g
      Hello NickSeraphim,

      I would recommend that you use the 25 Buy-In rule for moving up as well for moving down a limit if needs must.

      So in your case:

      Move up to NL10 when your bankroll reaches at least $250

      Move back down to NL5 if your bankroll drops to $125

      Kind Regards,
      -Steve
      Except if he 20 tables he has no choice but to move down at $200 ;)
    • PocketAcesJohn
      PocketAcesJohn
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.06.2008 Posts: 1,116
      Basically if you 20 table you'll need 20BI + a back log as you should auto reload + taking into account any downswings so thats where the 50BI for 20 tabling+ comes from...
    • LonePiranha
      LonePiranha
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.03.2010 Posts: 65
      I see you all are using very tight bankroll management on this forum. I am some what of a veteran player, and although I agree that people that are not so familar with the game should enforce a decent bankroll management system I also think that once you are playing poker well, and you have a little experience the need for such tight bankroll management becomes, well, much looser at the lower stakes (NL50 and below).

      Let me explain.

      I deposited what I had worked up from $50 on a pokersite that has now ceased to exist on pokerstars $135 and with that I play these limits:

      NL10 x 6 tables with a $10 buyin.

      NL25 x 4 tables with a $5 buyin.

      Summary:

      Tables = 10
      Total buyin = $80
      Total behind = $55

      I played these limits even when I was sat with just $95 in my account. Why?
      Because I'll only change when:
      A) I don't have enough cash to buy in.
      B) I have $250.

      In the event of A I would then proceed to close the NL25 tables one by one to meet my exact bankroll if need be. If I still was on a losing streak and got to $60 then I would still play NL10 full stacked at 6 tables until I dropped to $50. Then I would play 6 tables at NL5 with a $5 buy in, and 4 tables at NL10 with a $2 buy in. And this would be my lowest level I would drop to. I either bust and deposit $50 or rebuild.

      in the event of B this would happen:

      NL25 x 6 tables with a $25 buy in.
      NL50 x 4 tables with a $10 buy in.

      This way I would continue to play until I reached $500 or $200.

      NL50 x 6 tables with a $50 buy in.
      NL100 x 4 with a $20 buy in.

      Then this is the level that I would push to employ a decent BRM system.

      I'd play these limits until I had $2,500 or $400. Once I reached the $2,500 mark there is a massive change in my play.

      I play 10 tables exclusively NL100, should I lose I'll go back to SS'ing the NL100 and BS'ing the NL50. For NL200 I'd need to reach $10,000 but I have never yet reached that tier.

      If at any time at any tier up until the NL100 tier I am having an overly good day, I will open as many SS tables as my bankroll will allow.

      On a side note the most I ever reached was $3,700 and at that point I withdrew $2,000 that I needed due to being made redundant and after that hit a downward spiral that saw me bust, partly due to tilt and partly to hitting a few coolers, but mainly because I played bad because I thought dropping limits meant failure.

      Also as a note to Nick (OP), don't listen to people such as PocketAcesJohn who start their posts and I quote "LMFAO". These people are generally not trying to help you but belittle you and attract attention to themselves. If they enforce their views and offer no explaination as to why you can generally disregard what this person has to say.

      I mean seriously, where is your argument John?

      "You should auto-reload" Why is that?

      "taking into account any downswings" How can you take in account something that has not yet happened and may not happen at all at this limit? Plus, in many poker players mind there is no such thing as a downswing.

      "that's where the 50BI for 20tabling+ comes from" Where exactly? Who said this other than you?

      I am not trying to berate you, but I am trying to make you see that without real information to back up what you say or at the very least a true explaination all you are doing is pushing YOUR view upon a person that innocently asked for help and guidence from more experienced players who may of faced this dilemma before. Maybe next time try explaining and helping rather than CAPS LOCK and enforcement! Just because someone does something that you don't think you could achieve yourself, does not make it impossible.

      In conclusion Nick, I would set yourself parameters that you yourself feel comfortable with, if you feel you are ready to take a few shots at your next limit then by all means do so.
      However, I would personally take on board what NightFrostaSSS has said "reduce the amount of tables you play when moving up until you get comfortable with the new level".

      Good luck with your poker Nick, and I hope everything works out well for you.
    • harleytopper
      harleytopper
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.09.2007 Posts: 680
      Simple math of semi safe BR:

      You can play NL5 with some risk of getting broke (starting 50$). After you reach 150$ or 200$ you play NL10... NL20 at 600$ (30 BI), NL 50 (40-50BI), NL 100 (60-80)... then you decide yourself your comfort level... This is of course conservative...


      if you loose 2-3 stacks in new level you can move down to recover... :f_p:
    • ZeMammuth
      ZeMammuth
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2008 Posts: 704
      Hehe, so many funny replies. Actually i'm not a new player, up 3k live from this jan and 2k online. I'm just curious for ideas to see things from other peoples prespective. Online I was mashing up sngs and put my winnings in card. I just wanted to start fresh on cash games and build up 200. I'm already crushing nl 5 in 2 days made 150 dollars. I agree with the guy saying it's not neccesary to be too tight with bankroll management, however I beleive this should not be the case for begginers, even advanced players should have atleast 15 buy ins, because variance can eat you alive even if you are the best in the world.
    • TerrorBlade
      TerrorBlade
      Black
      Joined: 16.10.2007 Posts: 1,922
      Please ignore LonePiranha Nick, there is so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start.

      I would say about 40 BI would be good because as PocketAcesJohn pointed out if you lose 5 BI you can't 20 table anymore without playing outside of the BSS strategy.

      You would move down when you have 40BI of the next lowest limit.
    • LonePiranha
      LonePiranha
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.03.2010 Posts: 65
      Originally posted by TerrorBlade
      Please ignore LonePiranha Nick, there is so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start.

      I would say about 40 BI would be good because as PocketAcesJohn pointed out if you lose 5 BI you can't 20 table anymore without playing outside of the BSS strategy.

      You would move down when you have 40BI of the next lowest limit.
      Did I tell him to assume the bankroll management scheme that I myself have adopted?

      Or did I merely tell him how my bankroll management works and point out that people that offer no explaination as for why they feel people should follow certain rules?

      I think the later is more true here, and also I find it very rude that you say ignore me. Maybe John was correct with his information, but he should of also put himself forward in an appropiate manner instead of 'laughing his ass off'. It's hardly a nice or friendly thing to do, to laugh at someone you believe is wrong now is it? Maybe a better way to put his thoughts across would be to explain why properly and offer reasons?

      I merely explained that if the person that offers you advice starts their post by berating you and laughing at you then they are not usually trying to help you.

      Everyone is of course intitled to an opinion, and yours is duely noted I am sure, but to say ignore me totally is very wrong. Maybe ignore the bankroll management system that I have adopted but not me entirely.

      Maybe John is a valued member of your community or he's been here a while and granted I am new, but still laughing in the face of someone asking a genuine question is unquestionably a horrid and rude thing to do.
    • aceonetheriver
      aceonetheriver
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.12.2008 Posts: 591
      Originally posted by TerrorBlade
      Please ignore LonePiranha Nick, there is so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start.

      ok
    • PocketAcesJohn
      PocketAcesJohn
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.06.2008 Posts: 1,116
      Well i appologise for laughing then. lol. But i'd be lieing if i said i didnt find 20 tabling with 25BI funny, because it is. I would of thought it was common sense to play with more BI's? I think you will find though after my first post in this thread i did actually go on to add another 2 posts going on to explain why...briefly. I dont think either of those was "rude"...But the first one yeah probablly.
    • tcs35
      tcs35
      Bronze
      Joined: 31.01.2009 Posts: 3,583
      If you are going to be mass-multitabling then the variance increases as you are prone to make more mistakes and not see as many good opportunity's because you are playing a robot style. I suggest you have around 50 buyins minimum for mass-multitabling.
    • TerrorBlade
      TerrorBlade
      Black
      Joined: 16.10.2007 Posts: 1,922
      Okay, Piranha.

      1. The BRM strategy advocated by this site ensures that the chance of going bust and losing your starting capital is practically 0 if you properly follow the rules and don't deviate from the strategy.

      If someone is just using the 50$ to start their poker career maybe they can't afford to reload if they're using a crazy aggressive BRM.

      2. You might see it as a downside that it takes a long time to move up, this is not the case. If you're at the lower limits the more time spent their honing your game the better, this and the reason that you have a very low chance of busting your roll is why we advocate the BRM we do.

      3. "you should auto-reload" Because you're hampering your winnings playing with less than a full stack by deviating from the strategy, the articles weren't designed for 90bb or 70bb, therefore he needs to have quite a bit of "buffer" in his bankroll.

      If he's got 20 stacks on the tables and 5 stacks behind, in a run of bad luck these could easily run dry and he'll have to lower the amount of tables played or else he'll fall under 100bb.

      4.How can you take in account something that has not yet happened and may not happen at all at this limit? Plus, in many poker players mind there is no such thing as a downswing. <- now this is a really crazy statement.

      It's called planning for the future, downswings are inevitable over a poker career of any length, he could EASILY drop 10-15 BI over a really bad run, anyone who has played more than 3000 hands can attest to this.

      Denying that downswings don't happen to you because you don't believe in them is like not believing in car crashes cause they haven't happened to you therefore not wearing a seatbelt.

      5. 50BI is probably a good amount because of the reasons stated above, having 5 stacks behind is NOT enough when 20 tabling, in fact he shouldn't be 20 tabling at all really as it allows for no creativity and learning. When 20 tabling the winrate will be lower thusly increasing variance and the possibility of downswings, therefore a cushier BRM of 50BI is more appropriate.
    • opal99
      opal99
      Black
      Joined: 05.02.2008 Posts: 8,270
      Originally posted by TerrorBlade
      4. in many poker players mind there is no such thing as a downswing. <- now this is a really crazy statement.
      Only in great poker players mind (doesnt matter how high or low do they play)
      It's not crazy statement at all - it's simply said: the truth.

      @topic: 25 BIs can't be enough because of what was said few times. It's not the matter of how many table ones play though, because 25 BI rule should be enough in every case. But if one runs out of many to rebuy, he has to close some tables so it's just about convenience. And convenience is what counts during the session.
    • TerrorBlade
      TerrorBlade
      Black
      Joined: 16.10.2007 Posts: 1,922
      Treating your poker career as one long session and using this information to avoid emotional tilt thus removing the idea of a downswing from your mind...

      ...is NOT the same as avoiding severe monetary losses due to a bad run.

      i.e. Doesn't matter if you're 100% calm throughout a bad run, bad runs will still happen and that was what Piranha was saying.

      How bad do you think I am opal :/?
    • LonePiranha
      LonePiranha
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.03.2010 Posts: 65
      Nice post TerrorBlade. And a nice description of why you feel the way that you do, your theory seems just, and you put it across in such a fashion that makes your view impossible to fault. I find the agressive bankroll system makes me a little more aware of my cards at the tables however and forces me to play to the best of my abilities at all times.

      However, on the downswing issue. As you yourself probably know this is usually just a word that sprinkles out of mouths that need an excuse for playing bad, tilting off bankrolls due to seeing some bad beats, and other common mistakes that take place in the world of poker.

      I do concur that players will inevitably reach certain periods of time that will see some of there better hands getting outdrawn, or sees their second nut flush run into the nut flush. Whatever the case, this is one thing only (in my mind). Mathematics. And a player could easily drop more buyins than that, it depends on how that player handles losing.

      I look forward to more discussions with you.
    • lennonac
      lennonac
      Global
      Joined: 02.05.2009 Posts: 1,421
      Another classic fred with a random saying black is white.


      Oh I forgot LMAO
    • LonePiranha
      LonePiranha
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.03.2010 Posts: 65
      Originally posted by lennonac
      Another classic fred with a random saying black is white.


      Oh I forgot LMAO

      Intelligent input. You should feel extremely proud of yourself. Maybe email your parents so they can also bask in the glory of your formidable knowledge as well.

      Really makes me want to rush off and read your blog. But I'll refrian.
    • 1
    • 2