moving up in buy-in levels
when do you think it is good to move up to the next level buy-in? do you consider only your bankroll (i.e. i have 20+ buy-ins for a certain level so that's the one i'll play), or do you consider your BB/100 hands (or other winning stats)?
i have the BR to play higher stakes, but as someone who is relatively new to online cash games and is taking it slowly, i feel that i should "earn" my way to the higher buy-ins by winning enough money playing the lower level to move up (i.e. by beating the lower level and not just moving to the highest one i can afford). what are your thoughts on this?
i have the BR to play higher stakes, but as someone who is relatively new to online cash games and is taking it slowly, i feel that i should "earn" my way to the higher buy-ins by winning enough money playing the lower level to move up (i.e. by beating the lower level and not just moving to the highest one i can afford). what are your thoughts on this?
Comments
and this Poker Articles - Are You a Bankroll Nit?
Builds on the 1st one
I would agree that you need to earn your way to the higher limits because if not, you're most likely to not do as well once you move up (i.e. if you win a donkament and use that money to move up). Also, I only consider moving up when I'll have 35 buyins for the next limit and when I feel I'm actually ready (confidence is key!) to play that limit.
35 buy-ins? i guess that's pretty good. i've read that it should be 5% of your total BR at max.
The key is the amount of buyins though. I wouldn't move up without a minimum of 20, but I think jda's 35 is also very good as it will give you more confidence before you go up levels. As soon as your bankroll is less than 20bi's, its time to drop down though.
For SnG's it might be okay, but I'd still rather stay to a 2% of bankroll. For cash games though, I prefer the buyin gauge.
You're correct. Those are the two biggest factors.
I would also consider the standard deviation of your win rate and your tolerance of risk of ruin.
You're got the right idea.
Drop down a couple levels for sure.
If you find you're killing it then move up.
I do not think BRM can be calculated and applied for certain people.
It is extremely individual dependent.
When BlackmagicZ gets here he will back me up - Im sure of it (I remember that thread sir). There will be others as well.
Fact: I am underolled for the cash games / tournaments I play online, in the traditional sense of buyin per level BRM.
Fact: I play significantly worse at the levels I am actually rolled for. I simply dont care about the money at these levels. So I spew, dont think, stack off light, and ultimately play poorly.
I think true BRM only applies to people who are playing with money that they actually care about losing. The money I use for poker is my recreation money, that I would otherwise blow on useless shit.
If I happen to blow half of my bankroll on a Sunday major, so be it.
I know that the 1 big score I make every 3-4 months will more than cover my buyins. Then I cash ot everything and buy something nice.
Rinse and Repeat.
Yeah I agree. If you're playing recreationally then sure, go ahead and play underrolled. However, if you're playing poker for your part-time or full-time income, I think proper BRM is absolutely necessary.
+1..
i think i will also go with the minimum of 5000+ hands as well before considering moving up a level. is this enough or should i be looking closer to 10,000 hands? (side note: i'm currently at 15.47 BB/100 hands after 4200+ hands played at my current very low level)
+1
I can't stand playing games that buy ins are too small..I have zero respect for the game. I truly appreciate, seem to do better at, and most importantly...enjoy the higher levels...I certainly don't have the bankroll for it..but so be it...
That being said, if you are doing this for an income or a living, then yes, I can understand your need for "BR management".
Bankroll Management allows me to use the small startup I have online, play at the lower levels, (and I whole heartedly agree that it can be a zoo at the lower levels), and build it up as well as my own skill and confidence level to allow me to play NL50 and higher a lot more comfortably.
If I were in a position where I could dump new money online whenever I had to in order to play a specific level, I might do that, but the fact is that proper bankroll management allows me to learn at my own pace, at levels I can feel I'm not jeopardizing my investment, and hopefully grow it enough to play with the bigger boys at the bigger games without getting my ass kicked.
I don't believe it should be only considered when you play for secondary income. It can be used most effectively to provide a player with a tool to enable him to start small with minimum investment, and grow it along with skill and confidence to the level he wants to be at. Starting at $50 and playing .01/.02 NL and growing it slowly to play NL100 or higher is quite an accomplishment and one any player should be proud of being able to do, without the need to reload from his/her own bank account.
Excellent post.
I agree, I might also add if you don't care about the money then you don't need bankroll management.
Most people are losing players ... so they need money management not bankroll management.
ReefAquarium's money management ....add up your net worth plus the amount you can borrow.... divide by how long you expect to live... :-)
No WONDER I'm in arrears!!!
I should have died off 35yrs ago!
I think 5000 hands is the absolute minimum you should be considering because it is an absolutely tiny sample size (i.e. you could either be running extremely good or extremely bad). Looking at my HEM, I seem to have spend about 25k hands at each limit before I moved up: even this isn't a considerate sample size however I felt that I was confident in my play and had made enough money to be able to move up after the amount of hands I had played.
25,000? wow. i'm still working on my multi-tabling, so 25K hands would take me quite a while to get to. just out of curiousity, how long does it take you to reach 25K hands? how many hours and how many tables at once do you play?
this actually brings up an interesting question: should i be playing lower limits where i'm more comfortable multi-tabling, or should i be playing at the level i'm currently at but concentrating on fewer tables?
After watching several training videos and gaining valuable insight from online pros, I've learned that you should, at the most, be playing 4 tables at a time so that you focus on the players at each table, can pick up more player-dependent reads, and thus make more $$.
I usually start my sessions by getting on the waiting lists of tables with an avg. pot size of around 20bbs and a table vpip of around 30%. From there, I'll start playing anywhere from 4-6 tables and then slowly get off tables where I don't have good position on fish (i.e. no fish on my right), and I continually search for better tables throughout the session.
I usually can get in around 25k hands per month, playing sessions that are around 2-hours long, 1-1.5k hands, 4-tabling (btw these are ballpark figures, I could be a bit off).
Note: This advice is for 6-max games.
ok, that's not too bad then. although i mostly play 10-person tables which means less hands per hour, but i guess it shouldn't be too hard. i also tend to play around 2-3 hour sessions at a time. the level i am playing now i normally play 2 or 3 tables, so 1 more should be okay. probably take me two to three months to hit 25K hands i guess.
it would be better if you tied it to the point where you are crushing your current level and can't get anything else out of it.
15BB/100 is certainly crushing. But 5K hands is tiny. So is 25K. Put in 3 solid months beating your level up for 10BB/100 and over a good sample of hands and know what to do in every situation on the table and you'll know when you're ready.
'nuff said'... the SoCo on ice is kickin' in!
Could be variance or could be that you yourself are actually playing better because you care more about the stakes.
I used to grind $6.50 stts and the odd time I'd go on tilt from a bad streak of not cashing, and move up to the $16.00 and most of the time I did this I would at least cash, but I realized it was because I was paying way more attention to the game (taking notes on players that were limping, etc)