| User | Post |
|
9:00 am June 26, 2009
| CPGJFTP
| | |
| New Member | posts 1 | |
|
|
I'm trying to follow the suggested 100 buy-in rule but the rake is killing me. I currently play 6max nl25 at Fulltilt. I've read elsewhere that moving up as quickly as possible is important because of the rake. Is there a happy medium? I was thinking maybe 40BI for nl25, 60BI for nl50, 80BI for nl100, and 100BI for nl200. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
9:10 am June 26, 2009
| Pete
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
You're bankroll should be calculated based on a number variables:
- Win rate
- What's the sample size of your win rate?
- Standard deviation
- Comfort level
- How do you handle tilt?
- Are you willing to drop down to a lower level if you lose x amount of buy-ins?
- Are you able to replenish your bankroll if you lose it?
It's hard to really make any blanket recommendations without really knowing that information. However, I'll give it a try. :)
If you're a moderate winner at 25nl, 50nl with 60 buy-in should be fine. Just set a limit to how many buy-ins you're willing to lose before dropping back down to 25.
|
|
|
1:26 pm June 26, 2009
| Matt Flynn
| | |
| Admin
| posts 115 | |
|
|
Hi,
If the rake at the next level up is lower or similar to what you are already paying, then you do have an incentive to move up faster. However, if you cannot replenish your bankroll from outside source, you still should fear risk of ruin and should have a large roll.
Busto is busto. Hard to recover from that without outside funds. Again, if it doesn't matter much – like if you are a college student and don't really need the money for living – then you can be more aggressive.
Matt
|
|
|
10:50 am June 27, 2009
| shtStirrer
| | |
| Guest
| | |
|
|
I've thought about the 100 buy in bankroll BR requirement and it makes sense the more I think about it.
I've had swings of several buyins downward, and I can tell you there is more of an impact emotionally when you lose 30% of your BR as opposed to 10% of your BR.
Having a clear head while you're playing, win or lose, is obviously a Big Deal.
|
|
|
11:42 am June 27, 2009
| fishtastic
| | |
| Member | posts 10 | |
|
|
I'd like to throw in the extra point that 25NL is probably a bit easier than 50NL and you'll have a higher winrate to compensate for that extra rake. I haven't delved into 50NL yet, but my understanding is that it can be a little nitty. At 25NL, I have not yet had a problem finding a couple of tables with two players with 45+ VPIP on them.
|
|
|
8:55 pm June 27, 2009
| BT
| | i be on it all day | |
| Member | posts 5 | |
|
|
Post edited 3:57 am – June 28, 2009 by BT
I don't think that 100bi is a bad rule if you think you are at the level that maximizes your earn with respect to your skill value and you don't think it's reasonable for you to move up and play consistently at the higher limit. This is just something that you have to judge for yourself. Some people may eventually get to a point in their poker career where they have 100 buy-ins for a high limit but are negative EV in most of the games that run at that level, and that's not a good situation to be, so they choose to play lower.
I've never played with a bankroll that high myself, but then again I've never really played higher than $2/$4 and $3/$6 NLHE. I think that most poker players should be willing to take shots at new limits as soon as they have shown a decent amount of success at their current limit because often the games aren't that much tougher if you are table selecting well. I started playing at 25NL and slowly worked my way up to these higher games. This usually involved taking shots at the next higher limit whenever I had 20 buy-ins for that next limit. If I lost 5 buy-ins at that limit (1/4 of my roll), then I'd move back down to the lower limit (where I would still have 30 buy-ins).
I have played almost 200k hands this year. I've had 2 downswings of 25 buy-ins (currently at the bottom of the 2nd one – at least let's hope it's the bottom, lol). This is why it is important to move down quickly when you lose some money so that you don't decimate your bankroll. Before this current downswing, I was doing the bulk of my play at $2/$4 and $1/$2. I had a decent roll online for 400nl at one point of almost 40 buy-ins. But during this time I still kept playing profitable 200nl games. This was great because I felt extremely overrolled for the game. Playing with a large bankroll has advantages because it has helped me weather my recent downswing. Currently, I'm still in a position to continue playing 200nl with 40bi and less occasionally taking shots 400nl when the games are good. 25 buy-in downswings will hopefully not be standard for you, but it's important to realize that they do exist and I think almost every player experiences them at some point. Keep in mind that I am only a 2.3bb/100 winner over those 200k hands, so it is expected that my swings will be much larger than someone who wins at a higher rate. It's really important for players to recognize how their bankroll fits in with their long term expectation.
|
|