Active Bankroll?

Blast the broken search. I am sure this has been covered before, but what do you think is a reasonable bankroll for PLO?

I have been working with a 20x max buy-in assumption and wonder what others thought. Too much? Too little? Just right?

[Spellmen]

I think the general consensus is too little. Dave D had a good post that said something like this: 30 for taking a shot, 50 a safe bet, 100 to be completely comfortable

[Filip]

I thought it was 20-30-50

50+ buyin downswing i dont even wanna think about.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
30 for taking a shot, 50 a safe bet, 100 to be completely comfortable

[/ QUOTE ]

10-20 taking a shot
30 marginal bankroll
50 decent/probably adequate
100 safe/properly bankrolled

[dibbs]

The notion that 100 buy ins would be a very safe bankroll solidifies the idea in my head how swingy this game is.

That is, if 10-20 buy ins in NLHE is considered fine.

[three1ne]

This may just be me, and I dont claim to be an expert in omaha (i play it for a change from holdem and only when im in profit for the day) but low limit games are a complete lottery.

[twolf]

[ QUOTE ]
This may just be me, and I dont claim to be an expert in omaha (i play it for a change from holdem and only when im in profit for the day) but low limit games are a complete lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just you. PLO is completely about odds. Have you watched higher limit games? The games look the same but granted there is more psychology and they have a better grasp of odds/probability/theory.

[ QUOTE ]
That is, if 10-20 buy ins in NLHE is considered fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had a >4 buyin downswing in NLHE in over 150k hands so I think 20 is absurd, mostly but safe and I like safety. I'm playing the $50 NLHE right now with >50 buyins.

In my 25k(or so) PLO hands I've never had more than a 5 buyin downswing but for an inexperienced PLO player I would say 20-30 would be good, 40-50 would be nice, and 60-75 would be safe. For an experienced PLO player I would think that 30 buyins is safe. I play the $25 and $50 plo and have 100+ buyins for the $25 and >50 for the $50.

Just my opinion.

[dibbs]

I don't think it's a lottery at all, but there's some difference that I just want to put my finger on. Basically I still feel this way, if I see a 25$ PLO table and a 25$ NLHE holdem table with 17$ pot averages, I think the holdem game is much much better. Now I know that doesnt really make sense, but I'd know in the holdem game I'd have a huge advantage. Now in the PLO game I think I have a huge edge too, basically that I play good hands, draw to the nuts, know when to drop etc, but I feel helpless sometimes in PLO, like I need to flop a massive draw or hand and "get lucky" with it.

Looking at hand histories though, I can see I'm pushing positive edges, they just feel different than holdem I guess.

[joewatch]

What you are describing basically is the general nature of the games

NLHE = rewards aggression. You can win a ton being hyperaggressive. It is very easy to totally terrorize the table.

PLO = semiaggressive game. Being hyperaggressive is suicide

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may just be me, and I dont claim to be an expert in omaha (i play it for a change from holdem and only when im in profit for the day) but low limit games are a complete lottery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just you. PLO is completely about odds. Have you watched higher limit games? The games look the same but granted there is more psychology and they have a better grasp of odds/probability/theory.

[ QUOTE ]
That is, if 10-20 buy ins in NLHE is considered fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never had a >4 buyin downswing in NLHE in over 150k hands so I think 20 is absurd, mostly but safe and I like safety. I'm playing the $50 NLHE right now with >50 buyins.

In my 25k(or so) PLO hands I've never had more than a 5 buyin downswing but for an inexperienced PLO player I would say 20-30 would be good, 40-50 would be nice, and 60-75 would be safe. For an experienced PLO player I would think that 30 buyins is safe. I play the $25 and $50 plo and have 100+ buyins for the $25 and >50 for the $50.

Just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]



You say you've never had >4 buyin downswing playing NLHE and feel that 20 buyin rule is absurd. Then why with 150k hands of experience are you playing with 50+ buyins at the $50 tables rather than doubling your win rate at the super juicy $100 games all over the net?

I dunno, these kind of posts just seem sort of useless in the whole bankroll debate. They always lead to statements like I never lost more than 5 buyins, so I recommend 40-60 buyins...

My take is along the lines of: play at whatever level you can afford to lose 5 buyins (even though it might be rare, its not impossible on a real crappy day where the gods hate you). If you have $2000 and losing 5x$100 would freak you out, then play $50. If you have $300 but can replace it easily if needed and have a decent game, then try the $50s if the table is good. If losing 10% of your roll in a day scares you, then play with a 50+ buyin roll. etc.

[mshalen]

Most of the bankroll requirements that you see posted here are based on "if you are a pro" requirements. The best I comment I ever saw, regarding recreational players, is 25 buyins and a job.

I have been playing $100 PLO with only $2000 in total online bankroll distributed between 4 different sites. Is this an idiotic level? I don't think so. I started with $500 and have taken $1,000 off the table. In the event that I crash and burn - possible but not likely - then I will examine how I got myself into this mess and just redeposit.

Yes, I can see where there would be very real differences between what could be considered a "safe" roll if you were playing for living or for simple recreation.

It seems a lot of what makes a given roll size seem "safe" is the psychological insulation it provides. Dropping 4 buy-ins won't seem as bad if you have 46 more sitting behind that, whereas losing almost half your money with a 10 buy-in roll is liable to have you start doing crazy, tilty things, or making you play scared.

Guess I will keep attempting to build up to 35-50 max buy-ins at my current limit.

[twolf]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you've never had >4 buyin downswing playing NLHE and feel that 20 buyin rule is absurd. Then why with 150k hands of experience are you playing with 50+ buyins at the $50 tables rather than doubling your win rate at the super juicy $100 games all over the net?


[/ QUOTE ]

I play low limits for a living supporting me and my wife(she also plays), so I play it very very safe. Also I'm trying to grow a sack to play the $100 but right now after playing $50s and $25s for so long the psychological aspect of losing $100 on a hand and $50 on a hand is a very big difference to me. So your last paragraph is nearly spot on for me.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]
In my 25k(or so) PLO hands I've never had more than a 5 buyin downswing

[/ QUOTE ]
I've just dropped close to 5 buyins in my last 180 hands. New experience for me but I'm sure it can't be that unusual (I don't play loads of hands). Not tilting btw.

James