$300 Bankroll for $10-20? $800 for $20-40?

In Daniel Negreanu's article this week he mentions that in 1998 he considered $800 to be a "comfortable" bankroll for himself to play $20-40(for hold'em I assume). He also said that if he had entered a particular tournament and lost, he would have had to temporarily go down in limit and play $10-20 with his remaining $300.


Are these typical bankroll sizes for winning players at these limits?

No. I don't want to comment on what a typical bankroll is because most players tend to underrate how much they need. But for holdem a good rule of thumb is approximately 300 big bets. In Vegas one may need less but in Californias highly fluctuating games one would be better off with closer to 500 big bets. The structure of the game is another consideration- for example, the 20-40 and 40-80 structure requires more big bets then the 15-30 or 30-60 structure. In stud the bankroll requriements are pretty much dtermined by the size of the game, the size of the ante and how the two relate to each other. A 15-30 game with a 4 dollar ante would require a rather hefty bankroll, while the same game with a 2dollar ante would require less of a bankroll.

No. It sounds to me like a very foolish young man on an ego trip who has little idea of the swings inherent in these games. When you are winning it seems like you need very little money to be successful, but those downturns do and will come no matter how well you play.

"The structure of the game is another consideration- for example, the 20-40 and 40-80 structure requires more big bets then the 15-30 or 30-60 structure."


I think the opposite is true since you are more likely to get mutiway action.

Mason,


I believe Goat mostly plays at Hollywood Park and the Commerce. In both spots the 20/40 games are typically much more aggressive then the 15/30. This is also true at the Hustler. I know the structure should dictate the opposite, but this has been my experience. I also understand that the situation is probably different in Las Vegas.


I'm not as sure about the 30/60 versus 40/80. Perhaps Andy Fox (who plays at the Commerce) could chime in on this one.


Regards,


Rick

In Los Angeles the 15/30 and 20/40 are usually equally loose in terms of number of players seeing the flop. But once again the 20/40 is more aggressive and features more pre flop raising and post flop pressure.


~ Rick

When I read the article I got the definite impression he was talking about a point in his life where he didn't really have a bankroll. He misleading stated it was a bankroll, but it was really just some money he played poker with. It sounded like he often went broke and lost his "bankroll." This meant it was time to do something to scrape together another "bankroll."


If it was truly a poker bankroll then he probably wouldn't be going broke, assuming it was large enough to begin with and he was a good player.


It sounds like in Daniel's early days he would play in a game as soon as he gathered a decent buy-in, and considered this his bankroll until he either lost it or won enough for a buy-in at the next limit.

This makes sense. Bankroll means different things to different people. In some cases losing it would mean some stark choices in terms in how you will eat and sleep. In others it can be quickly replaced.


~ Rick

When I read the article, I got the impression that it was meant to be humorous. It's a nice set up to his World Series bracelet win to be nearly broke as a "seat of your pants" type player and then go on to score a big win in which he risked 1/3 of his entire "bankroll" to play in the event.


sam

The first paragraph of that article reads:


"Warning: The following three-part column will not help your poker game in any way. It is strictly a story about the events that took place leading up to my first World Series of Poker win. Actually, you should read it thinking, “Don’t do what Daniel did ..."


I read the article as Danial was almost cringing looking back at what he had done in the past.

Mason, didn't you say in one of your poker essays books that playing in the 15-30 game should reap nearly the same rewards as 20-40 but a smaller bankroll is required?

Anyway assuming you said this I inadvertently made the mistake of thinking smaller bankroll in terms of BB required- not just cash value. Also Rick's points on the comparisons of 20-40 vs. 15-30 in So.Cal are valid- I suspect that if 400bb is right for 15-30 then an almost identical amount would be right for the 20-40 level.

OK. I haven't read the article and probably shouldn't comment on it.

Maybe if you don't know how to play! That is $12,000 at 20-40 limit. Here's a word of advice...if you are ever down $4,000 from your original roll by playing normal competition at those levels pack your bags, head home, and only see cardrooms as you drive by. You can safely say you have no discipline. Take the $8,000 you have left and buy some mutual funds. Then get yourself a real job. Sheesh!


Keep in mind if you are a pro you're supposed to have living expenses outside your playing bankroll.

300 big bets is not a lot for 20/40. Remember that we are talking bankroll here, not buy-in. A $1,000 might be a good buy-in, with another grand or two in your pocket if needed. But to cover long term fluctuations, $15,000 - $20,000 would be a good bankroll size, assuming you are a winning player.