The 20 buy-in rule is crap

[ChoicestHops]

My bankroll is not in jeopardy, but Ive gone from $1200 to $870 in two days in about 80 sng's. 20 buy-ins and a few hours ago ago I was around $1100. I just checked the history and it was suck out after suck out 4-5 handed.I think I lost a total of four 80-20's and 2 90-10's. This isn't the first streak Ive had where no 60/40, 70/30 or 50/50 of mine will win in a sample of around 50 sng's either, by all means no.

This is not meant to be a bad beat post, but a simple fact that if I only have 20 buy ins where Im at now I would be back down in limits. In just a few hours with suckouts you can lose your bankroll if you stick by the 20 buy-in rule. I concede that many more is needed.

That is all.

[djj6835]

Who said 20 buy-ins is an adequate bankroll??

[Angelic_Ace]

20 buyins is hardly enough to avoid any risk of ruin. Considering many excellent players here have claimed out of the money streaks of 13+, I'd be more comfortable with 50 buyins. Also it helps psychologically when you have a shitload of buyins in your bankroll, you tend to agonize over your balance less (which leads to playing scared/tight, or just changing your style in general).

[flyingmoose]

I had a 20 buyin drop the last 3 days.

WTF said 20 buyins is good enough?

[ChoicestHops]

Alot of people consider the general rule around 20-30, which may be fine for the 5's. By level 3 you will have 5 people remaining. And then even more ludacris is when I hear some posters claiming that if a 2+2'er has an OOTM streak of 10 games or 15 games or something they need to reconstruct their game. Simply makes me shake my head in pity for when it hits them they won't know what to do.

[flyingmoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Alot of people consider the general rule around 20-30

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the people who think they know their win rate after 500 tournaments. Don't listen to them.

[ChoicestHops]

Well, it's in our FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
While many agree that to play the lower stakes games, 20-30 buyins is probably enough, many also say that to feel comfortable playing the highest limit games, they like to have 50-100 buyins in their bankroll. 100 being the most conservative number offered for high stakes play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously Im not talking about anything above the 55's.

[flyingmoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's in our FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
While many agree that to play the lower stakes games, 20-30 buyins is probably enough, many also say that to feel comfortable playing the highest limit games, they like to have 50-100 buyins in their bankroll. 100 being the most conservative number offered for high stakes play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously Im not talking about anything above the 55's.

[/ QUOTE ]

CRAP! I didn't realize it was in the FAQ. Well, I disagree with it.

EDIT: Actually, if you're reading the FAQ, you're probably inexperienced enough that you wouldn't psychologically be able to handle a 20 buy-in drop anyway.

[Angelic_Ace]

Ive played the 20's for a long time - 20 buyins there is 440 dollars - DEFINITELY not enough to handle the swings. Even with 50 buyins (1100) you will experience significant dips in your roll at times that will feel threatening.

[ChoicestHops]

I was considering moving up when I hit near $1300, but I was breaking even for around 350 tournaments and didnt want to move up when I had an insta spike happen. The only way to beat this is to play more games - I really need a 2nd monitor.

[Mr_J]

The faq is very wrong then. 30 buyins is enough at the lower buyins IF you are willing to move down when needed (eg $660 at the $22s drops to $330, move down to $11s).

If you don't want to move down, 50 is better, but you should still probally add to it from time to time.

[SammyKid11]

FWIW --

I am taking a very "safe" approach to buyins in my BR and when to move up. I started with just over 40 buyins at the 22's ($900). Every time I made 600 bucks, I'd cashout 500, so my BR would grow by 100 bucks each time. I've done this 4 times in the past couple of weeks, so my roll is now minimum 1300 -- when I get to 1900 I'll cashout another 500 and be at 1400. That's where I'll stop bankroll building for the 22's...that's over 60 buyins and I feel relatively safe at that level.

The plan from there is to buy 2 Dell2001FP's and start 8-tabling the 22's, growing the bankroll until each account has 40 buyins at the 33's (which will take a total of ~2600 bucks) -- then move up.

Anyway, that's my long-term plan...so far it's working pretty well. Just thought I'd post it in case anyone thought it was a good idea and wanted to try something similar. It's nice to have the structure built in for when to cashout, how to keep the BR growing while still enjoying your profits, etc.

BTW, yeah -- I agree 20 buyins is not enough to avoid risk of ruin, probably at any level...unless you are a super-stud player. At some point, the cards will just run bad enough that you'll lose 20 buyins over a short span.

[ChoicestHops]

That is a very, very safe approach.

For this month I should receive about $600 in rake, and Im hoping (and very well should) have an extra $700 I can take out of the bankroll to put towards two sexy 213T's. Only way this will work with me however is after I take out the $700 I will have $1000 for the 22's.

Good luck on your own venture.

[raptor517]

i follow the 100x buyin rule. no need to put the roll in jeapardy. holla

[YourFoxyGrandma]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/poopyhead151/Graph.gif

This just happened to me after moving up to the $109s, a downswing of around 25 buyins. I personally prefer 30 buyins to 20, especially since something resembling the above definitely can happen.

[stupidsucker]

30 buys at the 109s is suicide...

100 buys is much closer to reality for the 109s.

[FieryJustice]

...I was down 7k over the last 1000 215s...So I am now playing the $109s cause I dont like losing money and I want to see if I can actually make the same amount or a little less with ess variance.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
...I was down 7k over the last 1000 215s...So I am now playing the $109s cause I dont like losing money and I want to see if I can actually make the same amount or a little less with ess variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

man.. you suck. thought u were good. /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[FieryJustice]

I obviously do suck...I just wonder if I can have a -4% roi set of 1000 games and still be a winning player.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I obviously do suck...I just wonder if I can have a -4% roi set of 1000 games and still be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

some people, no, yer a winner tho. at least in my book. yer always a winner in my book. holla

[Moonsugar]

I played with you in a few games and I think you let some bozo put you on tilt a few nights ago.

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
30 buys at the 109s is suicide...

100 buys is much closer to reality for the 109s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you are true long term 10% ROI player at any level, you only need 70 buyins for a less than .5% ROR (assuming you play 12,000 sngs per year, which, of course, only a few people do).

[jeffraider]

I've got 60 buyins now and I'm going to keep adding until I'm at 100. It's just so nice to be able to drop 10 buyins and not care at all because you have so many more left. Playing with 30 buyins sucks because if you drop 10 buyins there you're looking at only 5 more until you "should" drop down. Boo to that.

[AliasMrJones]

I think at least 2 people have run simulations using "typical" good player stats and found that larger than 20 buy-in drops are definitely possible. How many buy-ins you need depends on your ROI and what % chance you want to have of not going broke. (There is no such thing as 0%.) Also, if you don't want to get down to almost-0 you might want to pad a bit. I came to STT's from limit ring and have always had > 100, which is probably more than I really need, but it means I wasn't worried on a recent 18 buy-in downswing at the $55's.

[YourFoxyGrandma]

Really? I haven't really tilted much at all during this last downswing, though maybe I let something slip. What did I do?

[fisherman112]

[ QUOTE ]
30 buys at the 109s is suicide...

100 buys is much closer to reality for the 109s.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have never had a 30 buyin drop at the 109s. 30 is fine if you can keep your ITM above 45% and your ROI above 25%.

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]

i have never had a 30 buyin drop at the 109s. 30 is fine if you can keep your ITM above 45% and your ROI above 25%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahhahahahahahahahahaha.

[Slim Pickens]

The ROR given by the spreadsheet assumes you never cash out. If you do, it gets a bit more complicated.

YFG, what the crap did you do to your spreadsheet?

[gildwulf]

I have 100 buy-ins for the 20s and the swings still hurt.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you are true long term 10% ROI player at any level, you only need 70 buyins for a less than .5% ROR (assuming you play 12,000 sngs per year, which, of course, only a few people do).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is the number of SNGs you play per year relevant? Isn't RoR supposed to be the chances you bust at all, not over some finite time span?

[microbet]

I had been going with 50 buyins, but I opened a new account started 5 tabling and will add tables when I get new equipment. Splitting the money has made me think about changing my BR plan.

I'm thinking of maybe going with 30 buyin minimum for both accounts. So I play whatever level I have at least 30 buyins in both accounts. Maybe I would bump that up to 40 for the $109s and 50 for the $215s (if I ever get that far).

This would mean a new level would be sampled and I would immediately drop back if I didn't start out winning, but that doesn't seem too bad at this point. I wouldn't have liked it earlier as I really wanted to move up from the lower buyins and stay moved up.

[citanul]

The FAQ has had the bankroll section changed. Let me know what you think of it. If you have anything else you think it should say or whatever, write something up and post it here. I wrote/editted it very hastily so who knows what it says now.

citanul

[jdl22]

FAQ looks good. Out of curiosity, why no mention of SNG power tools?