Bankroll vs. Ability
 

I have been reading that you need a bankroll of 300 times the big blind to account for downswings and variance.

My question is:

If you are not that good wouldn’t variance be a good thing?

I mean if you can have a down swing you could also have an up swing,
so if you are not a very good player would you be better off playing at a 15/30 table with $1,800 or at a 3/6?

My logic is this:

At 3/6 I need to win many more hands to win say $1,000 but at 15/30 or $2,000 NL all I need to do is get lucky a few times or even just once and I could win that amount.

I also read that if you are heads up in a tournament against a weaker player you should try to keep the pots small and gamble less since in time you will out play him, so as the weaker player I would want to do the opposite and make big pots. Right?

So wouldn’t the same hold true for cash games?

Thanks

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

Yes, in the same way that your best chance of winning at roulette if you play it is to lump on your lifetime worth of bets on a single spin.

However, playing higher stakes makes you less likely to win and when you lose you lose more. If you HAD to turn $1000 into $2000 playing poker and you were a really bad player then you stand a better chance of doing it at 15/30 and than 1/2.

I don't see how this is particularly useful in the real world though. If you desperately need to turn 1K into 2K, for example, you're better off putting it on red or black than playing poker with it because you are at less of a disadvantage.

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

[ QUOTE ]


I have been reading that you need a bankroll of 300 times the big blind to account for downswings and variance.



[/ QUOTE ]


Isn't the standard 300 Big bets rather than big blinds?

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

You also need to lose many less hands, get sucked out on fewer times, etc. to go bust.

Yes its 300 times the big bet. $600 at 1/2 or $9k at 15/30. As you go past 3/6 its recommended to have more like 500 BB to sustain variance.

To the OP, variance can be a good thing, but we tend to notice it a lot less when it is helping us out. Just dont come crying here if you play a game like you said and bust. We'll just say we told you so.

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

[ QUOTE ]


I have been reading that you need a bankroll of 300 times the big blind to account for downswings and variance.

My question is:

If you are not that good wouldn’t variance be a good thing?

I mean if you can have a down swing you could also have an up swing,
so if you are not a very good player would you be better off playing at a 15/30 table with $1,800 or at a 3/6?

My logic is this:

At 3/6 I need to win many more hands to win say $1,000 but at 15/30 or $2,000 NL all I need to do is get lucky a few times or even just once and I could win that amount.

I also read that if you are heads up in a tournament against a weaker player you should try to keep the pots small and gamble less since in time you will out play him, so as the weaker player I would want to do the opposite and make big pots. Right?

So wouldn’t the same hold true for cash games?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I see is finding a poker player who admits to being "the weaker player."

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

I'm still pretty new, but I have experience investing in the stock market. A rule of thumb is that you don't want to risk more than 5% of your bankroll on a trade. If you equate a trade to a session at a table, you could apply the same formula. Let's say a horrible night for you means losing $300, then you should have a bankroll of 6K. In other words your bankroll should be 20x your losings on a horrible night.

I prefer to err on the side of caution, so I'm going w/ a bankroll of 1000x the big blind. Of course, I'm still playing micro limits, but I still think it would be a good rule of thumb for higher limits. Why put unnecessary pressure on yourself?

Scared money never wins!

Re: Bankroll vs. Ability
 

Your entire logic is based on a gamble. Instead of having the proper 300bb (which I think 500bb is much better) to play at a certain level, you are opting to risk the same amount of money (which is now only 60bb) to "take a shot" at a higher level. At the 15/30 level, you are much more likely to see tougher competition. This logic is absolutely silly, especially since you are basing this entirely on:
[ QUOTE ]
I mean if you can have a down swing you could also have an up swing, so if you are not a very good player would you be better off playing at a 15/30 table with $1,800 or at a 3/6?

[/ QUOTE ]No offense, but based on your thinking, you have absolutely no business playing higher than 3/6. Stick to the lower limits and try to make a few bucks before moving up. Otherwise, if you really want to get your gambling fix, try roulette.