Going down in limits after what %loss of bankroll

Suppose I´m playing $10/20 and have a bankroll or 500 big bets, i.e. $10000 and the next lowest limit is $5/10. Are there any existing rules that tell me how much $ can I afford to lose before I should go down to $5/10? $5000 perhaps, so that I would have a bankroll of 500 big bets for $5/10?

use common sense. if you get stuck a hundred big bets you probaly arent playing well or something. so drop down and build up again. why wait until you have lost almost all your money to be absolutely certain you cant beat the game.

"use common sense. if you get stuck a hundred big bets you probaly arent playing well or something. so drop down and build up again. why wait until you have lost almost all your money to be absolutely certain you cant beat the game"


Good point. I should have added that the premise is that the $10/20 player already knows how to beat the game, but is losing due to unfortunate circumstances, not lack of skill. What would be your response in that case? (and no, "that isn´t possible" does not count as an answer even though I´ve heard that you do not seem to suffer much from downward streaks ;-))

For that matter, is there a point where going down in limits is counterproductive?


I've stayed firmly entrenched in 3-6 the last year. I haven't been a consistant winner. But I have won more then I would have playing in 2/4 what with the increased variance and higher loss due to rake.


With that kinda of a bankroll, I doubt I'd go below 8/16 - otherwise I'm just waiting for the guy with pocket 3's to snap my top two pair on the river with his suckout.

having been around poker for 35 years ive seen most all of it. and i guarantee that almost, but not every time a person is losing, they think its because of uncontrolable circumstances. thats almost never the case. they are playing in a losing situation, although they may not be able to

see it. so when losing change something that will make a difference. namely your play, the stakes or the game.

To gain a certain level of security (reflected in the constant k), you bankroll should be k*SD^2/EV for all limits. If you expect e.g. to make one BB/hour in both levels, but assume that the smaller game has a 40% higher variance, both limits are equally risky for you and would require about the same bankroll (since 1.4^2 = 1.96). If OTOH you expect to make 1.5 BB/hour with the same variance, you can do with 1/3 of you current bankroll requirement.


cu


Ignatius

"For that matter, is there a point where going down in limits is counterproductive?"


Consider this game:


You wager on the flip of a coin. When it comes heads you win 2 times your wager. When it comes tails you lose your wager.


At first glance this sounds like a good deal.. but let me explain the rules:


---


You must bet 50% of your *current* bankroll on each play.


You must play at least two times.


You are not allowed to be lucky nor unlucky.


---


Consider playing only twice and you are neither lucky nor unlucky. Ie, you win 50% of the flips and lose 50% of the flips..


Suppose after the first flip you win!!


You wagered $500 (50% of $1000) so your bankroll becomes $2000 ($1000 + 2 * $500)


But then, being the average joe that you are, you lost your second flip. You wagered $1000 (50% of $2000) and lost it so your bankroll becomes $1000 ($2000 - $1000)


So the average joe, getting 2:1 on his money on a few fair coin tosses.. ends up with what he started with!


There is nothing amiss here.. all the positive expectation is tied up in the case where you are LUCKY and win both coin tosses.


You can extend it out to any even number of flips.. as long as you presume the player is neither lucky nor unlucky (he wins half of his coin flips.. as will happen if he plays an infinite number of flips)


If the wager % for this coin game was LESS than 50%, he would show a PROFIT even when he is neither lucky nor unlucky..


If the wager % for this coin game was MORE than 50%, he would show a LOSS even when he is neither lucky nor unlucky.


TRY IT! Have the player wager 80% of his bankroll every flip. Watch how his bankroll spirals into the ground.


--


The percentage amount wagered in this game is much like what happens when a poker player moves up or down in limit due to his bankroll size.


There exists a %, based on a players edge and variance, which maximizes his bankroll growth. Less than this % he is giving away growth. More than this % and he is giving away growth. Too much more than this and his bankroll doesnt grow at all and may even begin to shrink! Obviously if he bets his whole bankroll (100%) on each event he is destined to go broke.


The theory behind all this is called the Kelly Criterion. I am sure you can find some technical details with a quick web search.


- Joe in connecticut