Bankroll requirement

[adam]

Obviously this is something that's very difficult to be precise about, but does anyone have any rough suggestions for bankroll requirements in pot-limit games, based on either...

1. The size of the blinds (although this would also have to include which game it was - I play PLHE, PLO and PLO8).

2. Win rate and standard deviation.

I've read a couple of articles by Malmuth on this, but those only related to limit. I've also heard of a rule of thumb that says that a bankroll in the region of 300 big bets is a decent amount. But I've never come across anything that specifically relates to pot-limit play.

As far as Malmuth is concerned, there's a formula in one of his articles...

bankroll = (9 x hourly win-rate)/(4 x standard deviation)

How likely is it that this can be applied to pot-limit?

Thanks for any help.

Adam

[Guy McSucker]

I recall an article which spoke of 200 times the likely cost of seeing a flop. Sadly I can't remember who it was by or what the reasoning was.

Sorry about that.

Guy.

[adam]

Hi Guy

Thanks for the response. I know you said you couldn't remember much about the article, but I was wondering if you could remember anything more about 'the cost of seeing a flop'? I'm assuming the author didn't simply mean the big blind, but I wonder how else you could work it out.

I did a search of the archives, and came across a post that suggested a bankroll of 50 times your regular buy-in for PLHE. My initial reaction was that that sounded a bit excessive, but I'm not sure.

And is there anything that constitutes a standard buy-in? 100 times the big blind? 200 times the big blind?

My feeling is that calculating a bankroll requirement on the basis of the size of the blinds and/or your regular buy-in is going to be a reasonable rule of thumb, but a truly accurate figure would need to take into account win rate and standard deviation.

Adam

[Phat Mack]

I've used the Malmuth calculations in GTOT, and I think they hold up for all games if you have enough data to get accurate figures for varience.

I think Ray Zee once mentioned that he would shun a PL game that he couldn't beat after 30 buyins. I think he was talking about wild games. If you consider a buyin to be 20 or 30 big blinds, that would be 600 to 900 bb's for a specific line-up. Of course that's an expert talking, I'm not sure the average winning PL player could use it but it's a good rule of thumb. Does anyone think 1000 x big blind sounds right?

JMO, Mack

[sam h]

Why would you want to sit down at a PL game with 20 or 30 times the big blind? 200 or 300 bucks for a 5-10 game? You can't get the implied odds to play anything but premium cards assuming your opponents play decently.

I would think that you would have to factor in a much bigger buy in for each session, at least 100 times the big blind, but that 30 might be an excessive number of sessions to be using in this equation. but i'm no expert, that's for sure.

sam

[Phat Mack]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why would you want to sit down at a PL game with 20 or 30 times the big blind? 200 or 300 bucks for a 5-10 game? You can't get the implied odds to play anything but premium cards assuming your opponents play decently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm using the term "buyin" for the the amount required to sit down at the table. The buyin is specified by the people running the game and is different than the amount you want to buy in for, which is determined by your strategy.

[TAFKAn]

1000 times the big blind is far too low. That is the amount you should expect as a routine variance swing in a single session.

I do not belive that you can use a universal rule of thumb for a buy-in to a PL game. Last Friday I bought in for 4k in a PLO game at the Shoe in Tunica. That was a satisfactory buy-in and allowed me to have most everybody covered when we started play. The next day the game was still going but the amount of money in front of each player was much higher. There was one player with 80+ k and one with around 60K. Since the most I was willing to sit down with was 10K I decided to pass on the game. Late Sunday morning the game broke and when it was restarted about noon the bankrolls were down to a more reasonable (in my opinion) average of 10K or so.

[Phat Mack]

I agree. I can think of several games where 1000 bb's wouldn't be enough. Also a lot would depend upon the game being played. I'm not sure that HE would need as big a bankroll as omaha, all other things being equal.

[Zeno]

It is difficult to be precise about bankroll buy in for a pot-limit game as there are a number of factors to consider. Type of game, style of play, how much money on the table and stack size of certain individuals at the table.

As a rough estimate, I like Phat's 1000 times the big blind as a rule of thumb to be modified by circumstances and playing style. This means that for a 5/10 game you need 10,000 in your pocket. Now in many instances you may be in a 5/10 game in which most players have only about 1 or 2 k on the table. You don't really need to buy in for 10k, in my opinion. As an example, in a game that I have frequented most players have between 500 and 1K on the table. A buy in of 1K is O.K. I can make most or all of my opponents play for their entire stack. Now if 3 other players are present that always have larger plies of money (usually 5K each) then my minimum requirement to buy in is at least $2,500. I want to at least be able to make any player at the table play for half his stack. This usually makes most players pause and think and stops most bullying and intimidation plays. If you have a bad beat or run bad make sure to pull out more money and replenish you stack to at least the 1/2 level.

This does not mean you have to miss some games because someone has one large stack and most others do not. If you can buy in and cover say 7 out of the 10 players at the table then I think your bankroll is adequate. So if 7 players have $500 you can buy in for say $ 800 and be reasonably safe. Of course you must have other bills stuffed into your pockets to pull out when needed. Say four times the amount you needed to buy into the table, about $2,000 for the above example or 4k if most players have 1k on the table. This, I think, is reasonable for most Hold'em games. Omaha is a bit more volatile and more money is probably required. Of course this is general bankroll buy in requirements for one long session of play. To play long-term (months say) then you need to be independently wealthy or morgage your house or rob a bank or etc.

Natedog says 1000x big blind is too small. I think he may play as wild as his hair; which means for his style of play he may be right.

I will add that all the above is my opinion and should be taken with as much skepticism as you think justified.

-Zeno

[Mason Malmuth]

The formula should be accurate for pot limit. However, it might take a little longer for your standard deviation estimate to be come accurate. Also, assuming you play very well, you may need less money than limit because your win rate can be very high.

MM