Parlay to Limits

Recently on a trip to the commerce. I was introduced to a gentleman who was sometimes thought of as a nut. But no one is laughing at him any more. He was the parlay master extrodinare. He would start at for example 9-18 level with the minumum buy in 75 dollars and then double it and go to the 15-30 at 150 and 300 a the 30-60 and so on till he hit a limit where he could not jump for example. Most places a have to high jump for example the place will have 60-120 and then a 300-600. In that case he would just play 60-120 till a good jump took place. He went at it hard when he lost he went back to the 9-18 when he made to much for the jump he pocketed the money. Thus allowing him to again buy in a the 9-18 level. Since he was a winning player. His positive expectation on his winning bets and plays at the higher levels made him a higher earn and expectation with little risk to his base bankroll. I have thought logically and mathematically about this method of moving up I see little downside risk and huge upside return. He went for the whole ball of wax but you could easily move up two levels this way. I have talked to other professionals about this some laugh some say it will work but poker is not blackjack you have a choice to enter a pot or continue playing when in the pot so the old blackjack comparison of doubling up does not come into play. You guys let me know what you think.

This guy is simply lucky if he can pull this parlay off very often. Mostly what he is doing is going on a fantastic rush and putting the winnings on higher and higher limit games. He is trying to win something like 5BB at each limit before moving up. Well, we know how long it usually takes the expert player to win 5BB. /images/wink.gif


At some point this becomes foolhardy if he is short bankrolled for the game he is playing. The money he has won is just as much part of his bankroll as the money he left at home. So, if he was only playing on $1K and wins 3K through this parlay, and then sits down at a 300-600 game, he has effectively put 75% his bankroll on a short buy in at a game where he might lose it all on one hand.

I agree, this parlay stuff sounds nifty but it all boils down to people trying to scheme their way into bigger limits without an adequate bankroll. There is also another problem with this idea and it is this: If you are changing tables every couple of hours or whatever, you don't get to develop a "feel" for the games you are in since you are not going to be able start to understand how your opponents play. Of course one could argue "well my opponents will have less knowledge of me too" but this is still bad because the difference between a good player knowing his opponents and a bad player knowing good opponents isn't equally weighted.

I tend to think this is a better technique if you want to try to move up a level or two for experience. If your goal is to play higher, I think it makes sense to take some shots at higher limits. If you pay attention you can learn from the players at higher limits and then be tougher in a smaller game, thereby giving you a better shot to make enough to move up permanently. I am hoping to move up, but don't have the bankroll to just play 15-30 or 20-40 until I figure out how to hold my own. So I intend to take some shots in bigger games as I go. The first time I managed a little win in a 10-20 game, I did it by taking a win from 6-12 over and sitting down. It gave me the psychological comfort to get into the game and try to play well instead of worrying about the extra money at risk.


As for this technique being a consistent strategy, I am less sure. I read a post on this technique some time ago, and the guy who used it described it as his own personal tournament. You take a small buy-in and try to run it up into a real pile of chips. I think it becomes a high variance play but might work for some people. It wouldn't surprise me if the guy using this technique had a style of play suited for tournaments. I can't imagine trying to turn $100 in a 10-20 game into a comfortable play at 80-160 in a few hours, but maybe that's why I play smaller limits and stink in tournaments. :-)

I wonder how long it took this person to build up their bankroll?

Would/could they have built it up just as fast using more conventional means?

Still - it's an interesting approach and although a bit of a long shot I remember reading Caro about the merits of risking a small bankroll and protecting a big one so if the mad genius is on your side...........