BRM 180 men Turbo's (Pokerstars)

  • 10 replies
    • Kikser1214
      Kikser1214
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.10.2009 Posts: 44
      I would say 100 bye ins min for turbos ,and i think that this turbos are worst tournaments on stars but that is just my opinion a lot of people play them,I like regular 180 better.
    • Cardbender
      Cardbender
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.03.2008 Posts: 1,070
      you can go 60bi but 100bi is always safe.

      Those 180 man SnGs are fun.
    • MatejM47
      MatejM47
      Black
      Joined: 21.01.2010 Posts: 1,193
      And super fishy, especially at low limits. Its nothing special to see 5 players all in preflop with hands like J6o lol. But yeah, those can be really swingy, sometimes you wont cash good in like 50 tournaments so imo 100BI is minimum. Getting ITM in those is no good since its top heavy structure so you gotta get at least top 3 to make any money out of it.
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello,

      Depending on how many tables do you play, if for example you are playing like 30+ tables then sure 100 BIs aren't enough but for less than 10 tables are 100 BIs fine. But from my experience I can tell you only that it's never bad when you are overrolled, it's only good thing, better get more BIs than the average one, you can get swings even like 500 games or so, even more. You have to be prepered.

      Best regards,
      Rensu
    • pzhon
      pzhon
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,151
      People often give the figure of 100 buy-ins. However, I think this is not consistent with the bankroll guidelines give for other forms of poker. 100 buy-ins is very aggressive. A consistent rule is

      bankroll = comfort * standard deviation^2 / win rate.

      Comfort depends on your personal risk tolerance and your willingness to move down if you hit a bad streak. A comfort level of 2 is aggressive, and a comfort level of 4 is conservative.

      The standard deviation in 180-player SNGs depends on your playing style, and it's a little higher for players who win a lot. A 50% ROI achieved by cashing in each place equally often gives you a standard deviation of about 6 buy-ins per tournament.

      Your win rate depends on you. I can't guess what your win rate is, or whether you are a winning player at all. If you are a losing player, starting with a large bankroll will not save you, and marginal winners need much larger bankrolls to be as safe as an expert would be with a smaller bankroll. If your win rate is cut in half, you need twice as much.

      For example, suppose you choose to use a comfort level of 3. You play NLHE cash games with a win rate of 6 bb/100 and a standard deviation of 90 bb/100. You play STT SNGs with an ROI of 8% with a standard deviation of 1.5 buy-ins. You play 180s with an ROI of 30% with a standard deviation of 5 buy-ins per tournament. What bankrolls does the formula recommend?

      For cash games, 3 * 90^2 / 6 = 4050 bb = 40.5 buy-ins.
      For STTs, 3 * 1.5^2 / 0.08 = 84.375 buy-ins.
      For 180s, 3 * 5^2 / 0.3 = 250 buy-ins.

      Do not confuse a cash game buy-in for a STT buy-in or a MTT buy-in. It is much easier to lose a MTT buy-in, and you may need many more MTT buy-ins to be safe even with a good win rate.

      The commonly recommended 100 buy-ins for MTTs is highly optimistic. I think the reason it gets passed on is that it takes a long time to get a good sample, and players who have a 100 buy-in downswing early are less likely to keep playing MTTs and to give bankroll advice to others. If you look at the Sharkscope graphs of players who have been grinding tens of thousands of 180s, you will see that 50 buy-in downswings are common, and 100 buy-in downswings happen occasionally, even for players at the top of the Sharkscope leader boards for 180s. If you start with only 100 buy-ins, this may be equivalent to playing cash games with 16 buy-ins, or STTs with 35 buy-ins. That may be suitable for some people, but most solid winners would find that too dangerous.
    • pitslz
      pitslz
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.02.2009 Posts: 550
      Good explanation, I've played 2$ with 100 buy-ins.
      There isn't enough traffic to switch to 7.70, and i switched to 6.5$(45), and think to switch at 12$ (180) when i reach 1500, but maybe i would try regular one and build stack for 200 buy ins

      What is the level of 12$(180) turbos. I have win rate 100% for 200 tourneys at 2$ ?
    • pzhon
      pzhon
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,151
      One way to measure the toughness of the games is to look at that level on the Sharkscope leader board. The players with the highest total profit tend to be mass multitablers who have traded some ROI to play more tables, but it is still useful to see what ROIs they achieve. For example, the player who is currently on top of the 6+ table $5.01-$15 leader board has a 27% ROI after 31,000 tournaments, and a lot of them seem to be $11+$1 180s.
    • i5bet72o
      i5bet72o
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,615
      40 BI seems like pretty agro brm for cash games. I would think 70+ is more appropriate but my comfort level is probally higher than 3.
    • Jehudas
      Jehudas
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.05.2008 Posts: 207
      For 180s, 3 * 5^2 / 0.3 = 250 buy-ins.

      That might be a really, really safe strategy but I think it is a little exaggerated as well...
      For a decent ABC poker player who isn't too risk-affine I'd say there is no way that you will get broke using only 100BIs - which means that you would get busted in all 100 tourney without a single win... If you do, then you souldn't be playing MTTs :s_biggrin: Another problem about the MTTs is the little choice you have. non-turbo MTTs can last ages (like the 4.40$ 180 at PS) and there is no real tourney in-between 2.20$ and 7.70$...
    • pzhon
      pzhon
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.06.2010 Posts: 1,151
      Originally posted by Jehudas
      For 180s, 3 * 5^2 / 0.3 = 250 buy-ins.

      That might be a really, really safe strategy but I think it is a little exaggerated as well...
      For a decent ABC poker player who isn't too risk-affine I'd say there is no way that you will get broke using only 100BIs - which means that you would get busted in all 100 tourney without a single win...
      No, there are many ways to drop 100 buy-ins without losing 100 in a row. You can easily lose a lot when you cash over 10% of the time but don't make it to the final table, or reach the final table over 5% of the time but not the top 3. If you play $11+1s, bust out 9 times, then make a minimum cash, then lose 9 times, then place 7th, you are down over 12 buy-ins.

      I see two main alternatives for the discrepancy between the math and the 100 buy-in guideline.

      One possibility is that people are grossly underestimating their ROIs. Maybe they say their ROI is 25%, but that is without counting the top 3 finishes, so their ROI is actually more like 125%. However, if you look at the players with the top total profits on Sharkscope, you find much lower ROIs. Perhaps these are high volume grinders who sacrifice ROI for greater volume. However, I do not think typical serious players should assume that they have a much higher ROI than the people grinding MTTs for a living. In STTs, many of the high volume grinders have ROIs which are not extremely high, but which are still beyond what most serious players achieve. So, while I think many live MTT players may underestimate their ROIs, I do not think online players do.

      Another possibility is that people don't have the experience to see how bad the downswings can be, perhaps because it takes longer to play MTTs, and some players who experience a downswing earlier simply stop playing MTTs and therefore don't contribute to discussions on bankroll management. If you look at Sharkscope graphs, you will see that many top players started out by doing unsustainably well. Presumably there were many players who started with the same skill who were unlucky, and they quit.

      Again, I suggest looking at the actual downswings experienced by players according to Sharkscope. If you look up players on the Sharkscope leader boards, you will see frequent 50 buy-in downswings, and some 100 buy-in downswings. For example, the top player in the 5-15 level has an ROI of 52%, but has had many 100 buy-in downswings which you can see if you zoom in on his graph at a 400% zoom. See the 100 buy-in+ downswings at 1400 tournaments, 2500, 5700, 7200, etc. which suggests that he has 100+ buy-in downswings every 2000 tournaments or so, which is about what the math predicts. Players who are not as good as the top player should expect larger and more frequent downswings.