45 man SnG, I think I found my game.

whats your bankroll?

I dont think they will be much harder mate

I'm on $43 at the moment, I'm going to try and aim to reach $100 before monday.

Originally posted by jaeden23
I'm on $43 at the moment, I'm going to try and aim to reach $100 before monday.

I like the $0.25 45s too.
They can sometimes go on a long time, though.

Be careful about shooting for a $ goal.
Be sure to play each hand for itself.

if you're playing them a lot, a HUD will help -- do you have one?
If not, both major ones have free trials.

I assume you've read this?
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/strategy/mtt/1529/1/

I play cash games primarily, but I keep an "MTT Budget".
If I have a winning session, I add 25BB of my win to the budget.
If I go on a downswing, I'll take some out.

the $0.25 45's though, are not in the budget since they so cheap to play.

Good Luck!

The first week of playing the 0.25 cent 45 mans was my best week ever at Pokerstars. (First time deposit conspiracy ♦)

I have played around 2,000 of these games, and I can tell you that you are 100% on a heater!! Not even Phil Ivy on steroids can win one in six indefinitely. These tournaments are filled with donks and bingo callers of the worst kind, and you will suffer a lot of variance due to suck outs and bad beats by players who simply won't fold their cards no matter how hard you bet.

You have started really well, but it is too early to say if you are a winner playing these games. But it seems you are good enough but don't expect to make 100% ROI after 1,000 games. A good ROI would be 30% or more. 50% would be exceptional.

The $1 45 mans play exactly the same as the 0.25. A good bankroll would be to have at least 150 buy-ins in reserve. My worst downswing is 38 buy-ins despite the fact that I was killing these games.

The 45 mans are my best game. They are a good bankroll builder but they are also high variance. I have made over $180 playing the 0.25 45 mans.

I think the heater is cooling down now Arthur ^^ Hopefully not though.

I don't have poker tracker yet, I do have the HE2 trial though but I don't really like it, it will only track a maximum of 3 hands I don't know why but I can't get it to do anything else.

How disadvantaged am I without a tracker, I don't want to become dependent on one as I'm intending to play live at some point, I find it much more fun.

You don't need a tracker for these games. Simply colour code good players and regulars 'Red' (You can steal from these, but fold if they fire back), and donks and bingo callers 'Yellow.' (They can't be bluffed or betted out of a pot). That is what I do.

Like I said before, if your ROI is 50% after 1,000 games, give yourself a big pat on the back. You are a very good player. If it is 100% after 1,000 games I want to stake you!!! ♦

Now for a bankroll strategy tip of mine! ♠_biggrin:

The $1 and $0.25 play exactly the same way. There is no skill difference between the two games. So here goes:

Once you hit something like a 30 buy-in downswing at the $0.25 games switch over to playing $1 45 mans. Then when you have made $30 or more playing the $1 games during an upswing, switch back to playing the 0.25 games before another downswing takes effect.

Make sure that you have at least 100 buy-ins for the $1 games to cover yourself. That way you are following good bankroll management.

You could try this system for other levels: i.e. $3.50 and $7 45mans. But always make sure that you have a good 100 buy-ins left for the higher level, and that you can comfortably play the higher level profitably as well.

I'm looking forward to that 100% ROI then! lol, just cashed in a couple more that payed for the ones I entered and a bit more.. the game plan for me then is to hit $100 in 3 weeks to give myself some breathing room, I'm also entering the FPP buyin MTT's to see if I can spike a bit of extra money while I'm at it.

Also the BR you mentioned sounds pretty cool if it works.

Originally posted by jaeden23
Also the BR you mentioned sounds pretty cool if it works.

It does work. That is how on-line pros do it. The trick is when to move up during a downswing, and when to move back down during an upswing, which is not easy when you are winning.

If you lose say 30 buy-ins at 0.25, then move up and make $30 profit at the $1 games, I would then stop, run with my winnings, and go play the 0.25 games again, until another downswing occurs. Then to move back up. So forth and so on. But just remember to have $100 (100 buy-ins) in reserve for the higher level.

As long as you are a winner at both stake levels, and follow good bankroll management (100 buy-ins), you should do very well following this method.

Originally posted by arthurbentley

Originally posted by jaeden23
Also the BR you mentioned sounds pretty cool if it works.

It does work. That is how on-line pros do it. The trick is when to move up during a downswing, and when to move back down during an upswing, which is not easy when you are winning.

If you lose say 30 buy-ins at 0.25, then move up and make $30 profit at the $1 games, I would then stop, run with my winnings, and go play the 0.25 games again, until another downswing occurs. Then to move back up. So forth and so on. But just remember to have $100 (100 buy-ins) in reserve for the higher level.

As long as you are a winner at both stake levels, and follow good bankroll management (100 buy-ins), you should do very well following this method.

Either we define "Up" and "Down" differently, or one of us has this backwards.

Conventional wisdom says that if you experience an extended string of losses (== downswing) then you move to the next lower limit when your BR becomes < 100 buy-ins for your current limit.

If you move DOWN in limits when you are in fact rolled for a higher limit, you have a huge cost in the missed opportunity.

What is conventional wisdom? (Dogmatist). Where do new ideas come from? (Genius). ♦

This is what I had in mind:

Higher buy-in: 100 buy-ins in reserve @$1; £100

Lower-buy-in: 100 buy-ins in reserve @ $0.25; $25

Total roll: $125

I begin to play the 0.25 45mans and after a while, I go on a downswing. Because of previous experience of downswings at these games, after a 30 buy-in loss I should soon be due an upswing. Nothing is guaranteed in poker I know, and a downswing could go on for much longer, but these games are super soft and are not turbo structure. I also follow good bankroll management.

A good player will not go busto playing these games with over 130 buy-ins. Well, it's possible, but very unlikely.

The idea is to hit an upswing at the higher buy-in for more profit. Then to drop back down and start again.

There is no skill difference between these two buy-ins. So there is very little risk, and I am not guilty of advocating chasing losses!

And before you dogmatically say that I should drop down a level after an 'x amount' of losses for good bankroll management purposes, then my reply is that this is a slightly aggressive bankroll strategy. That is, if you can call losing 130 buy-ins before going busto aggressive with these super, super, soft, soft games. ♦

You need to 'think outside the box' moderator.

Originally posted by arthurbentley
What is conventional wisdom? (Dogmatist). Where do new ideas come from? (Genius). ♦

This is what I had in mind:

Higher buy-in: 100 buy-ins in reserve @$1; £100

Lower-buy-in: 100 buy-ins in reserve @ $0.25; $25

Total roll: $125

I begin to play the 0.25 45mans and after a while, I go on a downswing. Because of previous experience of downswings at these games, after a 30 buy-in loss 1**  I should soon be due an upswing. Nothing is guaranteed in poker I know, and a downswing could go on for much longer, but these games are super soft and are not turbo structure. I also follow good bankroll management.

2**  The idea is to hit an upswing at the higher buy-in for more profit. Then to drop back down and start again.

There is no skill difference between these two buy-ins. So there is very little risk, and I am not guilty of advocating chasing losses!

And before you dogmatically say that I should drop down a level after an 'x amount' of losses for good bankroll management purposes, 3**  then my reply is that this is a slightly aggressive bankroll strategy. That is, if you can call losing 130 buy-ins before going busto aggressive with these super, super, soft, soft games. ♦

You need to 'think outside the box' moderator.

Well, I don't think I've ever been called "dogmatic" before -- cool ♦
You are correct in the fact that if you have $125 buy-ins, it doesn't matter which of the two limits you play. I did not fully understand your aim from your first post, now I do.

I marked 3 points in your post, and I'll give my thoughts on those items:
1**  The notion that a downswing will inevitably be followed by an upswing is called The Gambler's Fallacy. Your scheme of dropping down when running good seems to indicate that you are trying to avoid having your downswing at the higher limit. If you have 130 buy-ins for the $1 tournaments, and if -- as you insist -- there is no difference, then every time you win a $.25 your are missing out on 4x the winnings.

2**  You give no valid reason for dropping down. Why do it at all? I could understand it if the tournaments were that much tougher at $1, but you say they're not. How many losses counts as a downswing after which you start playing the higher limit? 1? 2? 3? How many wins do you suffer at the higher limit before you forego your wins and chicken out back to the minor leagues? 1? 2? If you win 3 in a row, you are now up $35.19 Why drop? If you dropped after the first one, the 2nd and 3rd only net you $3.23 each -- seems like a waste of effort to win so little, when the risk is the same.

I may be dogmatic compared to your genius, but there is certainly something I'm not following here.

3**
This Bankroll Management strategy is not aggressive at all.
Aggressive would be playing the $1 tournaments with only 60 or even 80 Buy-ins.
When you play the .25s with a $125 roll, you are playing w/ 500 buyins -- extremely conservative in fact.

Now you are being obtuse. I never advocated playing with 500 buy-ins, did I?

I know all about the gambler's fallacy. I am not advocating chasing losses by forever increasing stakes. For example, staking at Roulette. It doesn't work because of the house edge. Poker is different however, because it is a game of skill over luck in the long run. As you well know. And so long as you are properly rolled for a particular level (say 150 buy-ins), and you are also a proven winner, there is no gambler's fallacy as such. Although anything can happen in poker. I know. Nightmare downswings can and do happen. So even 'conventional wisdom' about bankroll management, about dropping down, can still come unstuck if the worst happens. There are no guarantees in poker.

I have quickly recouped my initial losses from a downswing after jumping up stakes to playing $1 games. It has worked for me several times. But I then dropped back-down as soon as I recouped my initial losses. I didn't bother going for the extra profit, because I was unsure about what stop-loss plan I should adopt. That is the main flaw of this system. I know that.

As a general rule, from experience, my average downswing loss seems to peak at 30-40 buy-ins for the 45 mans. Then an upswing follows. But an upswing isn't always guaranteed I know. I can only go on previous experience. I have had several 30-40 buy-in downswings but never 100. Not even close. One day it will happen. But generally, my main downswings last for 30-40 buy-in losses.

Now I have read on the net that some online pros play this way. They wait for a downswing at a lower buy-in, and then play their normal stake and wait for an upswing. Which pros do this? I don't know! The article didn't explain, and yes, I know, the author could have been making it all up. But I was intrigued to read that someone else was thinking along the same lines as me.

Maybe my thinking is flawed. But the system worked for me. I recouped my losses in double quick time without taking any bankroll risks. It may not have made me any richer, but it did save me some time from having to recoup my losses at the 0.25 level where my upswing continued for some time after. So, overall, I did better than normal. Better than If I Had just remained at the 0.25 level all along. Although not better if I just played the $1 games from the beginning. And I know you will hit me with that one!!

And lastly, if I was already over-rolled for the $1 games, why bother playing the 0.25 tournaments? I am a bankroll nit is the answer to that question. ♦

delete. posted in error.

Originally posted by arthurbentley
Now you are being obtuse. I never advocated playing with 500 buy-ins, did I?

If you advocate playing $0.25 tournaments with a $125 roll, that is exactly what you are advocating (125 / 0.25 == 500). Your prev post seems to indicate that you are playing that way. Sorry if I still misunderstand.

Originally posted by arthurbentley
I know all about the gambler's fallacy. I am not advocating chasing losses by forever increasing stakes.

The gambler's fallacy is more than that. The gambler's fallacy is simply the notion that a run of good or bad luck will be followed by a run of the other.
Your strategy is built on this notion.

Originally posted by arthurbentley
Now I have read on the net that some online pros play this way. They wait for a downswing at a lower buy-in, and then play their normal stake and wait for an upswing.

I'm sure some do. However the odds of winning any hand -- or tournament -- are not influenced in the slightest by what has gone on before.

By all means, play at whatever level you feel comfortable playing, with whatever bankroll you feel comfortable playing with, as long as it is sufficient for the long term.

The gambler's fallacy is more than that. The gambler's fallacy is simply the notion that a run of good or bad luck will be followed by a run of the other.
Your strategy is built on this notion.

And so is bankroll management of moving down stakes if a player has less than 100 buy-ins from an initial 150 buy-in bankroll. Dropping down stakes is no guarantee of not going busto. It just prolongs the agony. This is bankroll management fallacy. Only positive variance and a player's skill edge will save their bankroll from any downswing.

All winning poker players make their profit from the upswing. But they usually play at level stakes only, never chase losses, and drop down if necessary to protect their remaining bankroll. I totally agree and endorse this strategy. The key here is 'winning players.' Those who have a skill edge over the rest of the players.

The gambler's fallacy:

Foolhardy Fred walks into a casino, sits down and plays Roulette. He waits for the colour red to win for ten consecutive spins. "Ahhh now is the time to bet on black he thinks to himself." Yes, that is the gambler's fallacy.

However, an upswing will eventually follow any downswing on a Roulette table. But because of the house edge eating away at your profits, and the fact that Roulette is a non-skill game, it is impossible to make a profit in the long term. But the Casino is also the gambler in reverse, but with an edge of 2.7% over the roulette player, and this is enough to ensure they make a profit over the long run, and the gambler is guaranteed to lose all their money eventually. If the tables were turned however, and Foolhardy Fred had a 2.7% edge over the Casino, then he would make money - eventually. As long as he didn't chase losses by endlessly increasing stakes.

Arthur you need to read a book..maybe the poker mindset. Don't take offense but your reasoning at the moment is deluded.

To suggest that waiting for an upswing is what all winning poker players do, you are wrong. Winning poker player consistently make the right decision at the right time. They make more money from times when they are ahead, and lose less when they are behind (knowing when to fold).

I'd even say that playing the $0.25 games with anything more that $50 if you are a winning player is bad. 50 buy-ins is more than enough for $1 45 mans. As you said before there is no skill difference between $0.25/$1 or very little at that.

Originally posted by dogma18
Arthur you need to read a book..maybe the poker mindset. Don't take offense but your reasoning at the moment is deluded.

To suggest that waiting for an upswing is what all winning poker players do, you are wrong. Winning poker player consistently make the right decision at the right time. They make more money from times when they are ahead, and lose less when they are behind (knowing when to fold).

I'd even say that playing the $0.25 games with anything more that $50 if you are a winning player is bad. 50 buy-ins is more than enough for $1 45 mans. As you said before there is no skill difference between $0.25/$1 or very little at that.

Thank you.
I couldn't have said it better.

However, I must point out that your name itself is dogmatic.

We're doomed

ahaha and this is why i commented ♦

Originally posted by arthurbentley
The first week of playing the 0.25 cent 45 mans was my best week ever at Pokerstars. (First time deposit conspiracy ♦)

I have played around 2,000 of these games, and I can tell you that you are 100% on a heater!! Not even Phil Ivy on steroids can win one in six indefinitely. These tournaments are filled with donks and bingo callers of the worst kind, and you will suffer a lot of variance due to suck outs and bad beats by players who simply won't fold their cards no matter how hard you bet.

You have started really well, but it is too early to say if you are a winner playing these games. But it seems you are good enough but don't expect to make 100% ROI after 1,000 games. A good ROI would be 30% or more. 50% would be exceptional.

The $1 45 mans play exactly the same as the 0.25. A good bankroll would be to have at least 150 buy-ins in reserve. My worst downswing is 38 buy-ins despite the fact that I was killing these games.

The 45 mans are my best game. They are a good bankroll builder but they are also high variance. I have made over $180 playing the 0.25 45 mans.

hi man, i'am playing the 45 to, i played almost 500 sng, i want to ask you what was the worst down that you had, i'am woning 60 buy ins but i'm on a down of 60 buy ins...