Smaller bankroll: SSH (IT)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi everyone:

One question that's coming up concerning IT is "Do you need a bigger bankroll to play successfully as it advises? The answer for most of you should be no.

The reason for this is that the required bankroll to assure survival is predicated on the relationship between two parameters -- your win rate and your standard deviation. The higher the win rate, the smaller bankroll that is needed, while the higher the standard deviation, the larger bankroll that is needed. Of course this assumes that the other parameter remains constant.

But what if both your win rate and standard deviation rise? The answer now depends on how much did each raise relative to where you were before.

I suspect that many of you were employing a weak/tight style similar to waht is advocted in most of the beginning poker books. If this is the case, while you might be a winner, you shouldn't win very much (in the long run). Thus when you study and implement the ideas in IT, even though your standard deviation should go up meaning that your very short term fluctuations will increase, your win rate should also rise enough once you get the hang of everything to more than offset this.

So for most of you I predict that you will actually need a smaller bankroll to keep from going broke. This may seem counterintuitive when using this more aggressive style, but it is the way it is.

Best wishes,

Mason

[Blarg]

Assuming correct implementation and little to no learning curve.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Blarg:

In many cases, the results should be immediate. For example, suppose you are someone who knows to only play on the flop with what you think is either the best hand or the best draw. (Don't laugh, at a dinner with a guest speaker that I attended a few months back this was one of the nuggets of advice that the speaker gave.)

Just a quick reading of IT should improve you immediately in this area.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
So for most of you I predict that you will actually need a smaller bankroll to keep from going broke. This may seem counterintuitive when using this more aggressive style, but it is the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can certainly vouch for this statement.

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
In many cases, the results should be immediate.

[/ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence on the "leaking money" thread, among others that this is not the case.

SSH is not an immediate "stop the bleeding" text. I believe that playing SSH-style takes a lot more judgement than the more mechanical style of WLLH, and until people figure out when and when not to be aggressive and adjust to playing SSH-style, I think it is reasonable to expect your win rate to decline.

Take your example:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, suppose you are someone who knows to only play on the flop with what you think is either the best hand or the best draw. (Don't laugh, at a dinner with a guest speaker that I attended a few months back this was one of the nuggets of advice that the speaker gave.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, SSH teaches you that. But with that added wisdom comes a higher learning curve of how to play those hands that you never played before. The application (or mis-application) of this rule can easily lead to Neg EV play for a time.

[djack]

I'm surprised it took you this long to point this out, Mason.

Mason's "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" goes into depth on the bankroll subject, and is one of the best 2+2 reads.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

After my two-week hiatus to study SSH (and focus on my day job) I played exactly 67 hands at Party 2/4 and lost $5. Clearly SSH did not yield the immediate results promised.

[Andy B]

How long will it be before SSH (IT) is reduced to SSHIT?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
How long will it be before SSH (IT) is reduced to SSHIT?

[/ QUOTE ]

I beat you to it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=books&Number=894152&Forum= ,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=893 619&Search=true&where=&Name=1948&daterange=&newerv al=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post 894152

[razor]

If anyone can come up with a post prior to this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=books&Number=893781&Forum= ,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=893 515&Search=true&where=&Name=472&daterange=&newerva l=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post8 93781) I'll be happy to defer credit...

that is all.

[Blarg]

I think you could definitely be right, Mason, especially for people who catch on fast or are somehow smarter or use better judgment.

My remark was just trying to get at not all people being like that, especially not all the time. Misapplying just a few ideas could cause a seemingly inordinate amount of trouble, too.

Two things. Frankly, you have to be smarter to play as Ed suggests than you do to play as WLLH and some other texts suggest -- and as probably many people naturally play. (I have a huge preponderance of weak-tight players in my Pokertracker records.) You have to make many more decisions, which always opens up the possibility of making more errors.

And frankly, some of us are simply more boneheaded than others, and sometimes I think I could split a few stones with my own noggin. Lots of people will not apply Ed's or anyone's ideas optimally until they screw up with them for a while first. It can be hard even for very bright people to flawlessly both drop one set of behaviors and then successfully apply new ones in their place. There is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, as the saying goes.

For myself, I read Ed's book and immediately started doing a little better than usual, then had a shockingly volatile (and negative) few hours. But I think that was frankly just what fate had in store for me. I just got beaten with a lot of good hands, so too bad for me. I certainly don't blame Ed, and I don't really even blame myself much. Everyone has a bad run once in a while.

However, I quickly made it all back and in the last few days I've made more than what I used to take a month to make. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think in the long run you are right that playing well or playing better means you need less of a bankroll.

It's just the short-term that worries people. Reading a book and understanding it are two different things, and implementing its ideas are still another step removed. The space between having a good idea and finding success with it can be a chasm sometimes.

I do picture a classic weak-tight player being subject to worse swings sometimes than a more aggressive, but smarter player. If the former plays very few hands and gets those stomped, he's in trouble because he won't be able to make up his losses for a long time, since he chooses to push very few of his edges. Maybe even those he has, he pushes too weakly. Losses can add up quickly that way.

A more aggressive player, pushing every small margin he can get, will be picking up many more pots while waiting for his killer hands than the weak-tight player will have ever put himself into a position to win.

That can damp down volatility a lot.

Unless, of course something goes horribly wrong. Which does happen in poker.

But, that's what the long run is for, after all. You'll get there with more money playing Ed's way. But you'll put more money in play Ed's way too, rendering you more subject to both the vagaries of luck and, perhaps, your own poor play.