PDA

View Full Version : Rolling Bankroll


sofere
04-25-2005, 10:07 AM
Last week, for the first time I've had to move down in limits (cash out curse of course) and started to think about BR management theory.

The general consensus is 20-50 buy-ins but everyone gives a static amount with the general advice to multitablers to think about playing 3 at one level and 1 at another as an adjustment or to try out a higher buy-in, but little guidance as to how to decide when to add a different buy-in.

I was thinking...if your a 4 tabler, you could make your move up/move down decisions a lot easier buy having a rolling bankroll. That is to say, your BR should be based on average buy-in per set and you should add higher/lower buyins to your set continuously to keep a consistent bankroll.

For example, lets say you choose 30x avg buy-in bankroll, you're a $22 4-tabler who wants to move up in buy-in levels. You're starting BR is $660. You hit a bad streak and you're down to $580. Then you should take away replace a $22 with an $11 so you maintain bankroll (22*3+11 = 77, 77/4 = 19.25, 19.25 * 30 = 577.5 = minimum bankroll) If you then go down to $495, you should replace another $22 with an $11.

Likewise, rather than waiting until you have 30x the $33s to start to try them out, wait until your BR is $745 [($22*3+33)/4 * 30] to replace one $22 with a $33.

This will eliminate the questions of "do I have the BR to move up in limits?" and "should I move down?"

This practice can also work with 1-tablers if, similar to a 4-tabler replacing one table with a different buy-in, you play 1 of every 4 at a different buy-in.

Mr_J
04-25-2005, 10:19 AM
I use a rolling BR. Easy way to get rid of ROR. Only problem is I haven't played an sng in 10-14 days (since I've moved to the $55s).

Maulik
04-25-2005, 01:08 PM
what's ROR? I think the idea of a bankroll for a winning player is to absorb the variance, this defeats the purpose of the roll. I hate moving down limits and hopefully won't have to.

sofere
04-25-2005, 01:17 PM
ROR = Risk of Ruin,

[ QUOTE ]
I hate moving down limits and hopefully won't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do too. It hurts the pride and the $/hr. However, many people don't know when it is time to move down and will continue to ride a bad streak into the ground. It will then take $$$ out of pocket and building from the ground up to go back to where you were.

Also, when you move up in levels, I assume you wait till you have X times buy-in then move up. This way you get a taste of higher buy-ins and ease into it, plus you start playing the higher buy-ins sooner and, if profitable, will get to that X times the buy-in sooner.

I'm kindof thinking of it like a Poker "dollar-cost averaging" system.

Maulik
04-25-2005, 01:36 PM
As far as myself moving up in SNGs, I usually ease myself into it during peak hours and go from there. I like the idea of $ cost averaging. I like it even more for investors who are wary of investing but who need to find a place to start.

Slim Pickens
04-25-2005, 02:05 PM
This seems like a great idea and I'll start using it. I don't like like the idea of adjusting for the percieved softness of games as those wild Friday night all-in fests lead to a higher $/hr, but also higher variance and thus ROR.

Slim