BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I hear from everyone if your BR gets too low then it's time to play lower stakes. I disagree with this "if your at least a break even player or better". Here is why, you have a BR of 500BB, with that kind of player and BR means you should never go broke, EVER! This will handle any and all variances in your game. So what if you get down even 200BB, you have the BR for that reason and you will get even again. IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hear from everyone if your BR gets too low then it's time to play lower stakes. I disagree with this "if your at least a break even player or better". Here is why, you have a BR of 500BB, with that kind of player and BR means you should never go broke, EVER! This will handle any and all variances in your game. So what if you get down even 200BB, you have the BR for that reason and you will get even again. IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is certain, except the fact that you can be certain of nothing in poker.

Even bankrolls considerably larger than 500BB can be cracked - it happens. Why? Because even when you are a 990-1 favorite you can still be beaten -


Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

whe your 500 BB bankroll drops to 200 BB you no longer havw a 500 BB bankroll. You have a 200 BB bankroll. You think the cars know you had 300 BB more 5k hands ago?

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
whe your 500 BB bankroll drops to 200 BB you no longer havw a 500 BB bankroll. You have a 200 BB bankroll. You think the cars know you had 300 BB more 5k hands ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I already thought of that and it doesn't make sense based on the initial BR for the purpose.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

pretend it's 2% (for simplicity) likely that you will ever lose 250 BB.

ok, you go and lose 250 BB. the chances you lose another 250 BB is still 2%. nothing has changed. it's still 2% that you'll win.

let's say you have AA against JTs. you're a big favorite. now the flop comes 982 with 2 of his suit. you aren't a big favorite anymore

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I get what you're saying... at point A we have 500BB and we say, "since we are a winning player we will for all intents and purposes never lose this 500BB." So we are gold to keep playing at this limit no matter what. But if we drop 300BB we have to say that our probability of losing 500BB is now higher than it was before. The probability of losing 500BB was close to 0%, but it was something... let's say it was 1 in 1,000. And in that 1 in 1,000 case, it has to start with a 300BB downswing first.

let's say that for winning players, all 500BB bankrolls have a 1 in 1,000 chance of dwindling to zero. Of these bankrolls, some will drop 300BB righ toff the bat. At that point, the bankrolls then have a probability of like 1 in 100 of dwindling to zero. Many people at this point reevaluate and say, "I feel the odds are now too high that I will bust out completely, so I will now go to a lower limit." But you don't have to. You just have to be aware that the probability of losing your roll went up 10-fold. It's like betting black on a roulette wheel. If you find a bankroll that started at 500BB and it's now at 100BB, you can't say, "Well we figured that at 500BB this bankroll had almost a zero chance of busting." That is like walking up to a roulette wheel that has spun black 15 times in a row and putting $10K on red because the odds of it being black 16 times in a row is so small... The original gambler's fallacy.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
But if we drop 300BB we have to say that our probability of losing 500BB is now higher than it was before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say that happens, we are covering the variance, not that we are less than a break even player, there is a difference. To me, when people say they are moving down, tells me they are not a break even player in which case your BR doesn't mean much.



[/ QUOTE ]You just have to be aware that the probability of losing your roll went up 10-fold. It's like betting black on a roulette wheel. If you find a bankroll that started at 500BB and it's now at 100BB, you can't say, "Well we figured that at 500BB this bankroll had almost a zero chance of busting." That is like walking up to a roulette wheel that has spun black 15 times in a row and putting $10K on red because the odds of it being black 16 times in a row is so small... The original gambler's fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between a streak and each individual event. We are betting on a streak than each individual event like in roulette. Were not just playing one hand of poker but a life long amount of hands (never ending so to speak). Again were at least a break even player with a calculated BR to cover variance. While there is always the chance of going bust, I believe you shouldn't move down unless you lose your BR. Then and only then will this tell you odds are you are not a break even player at those stakes and or possibly at any stakes.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

One more thought, say 300BB is the min. to never go broke. Now, before moving up in stakes say from 5/10 to 10/20 requires twice the BR. Then on the flip side if we just start out with our 300BB at a 5/10 in the big blind and fold, now we have 299BB and need to drop down in stakes...that is BS but that what is being implied by moving down in any case.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Opps, 299.5BB

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it may be rare, but there are truly great holdem players (not to mention us shitty ones [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) who have had 500 BB downswings.

Good luck,
Matt

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Surely you arent arguing that there is no such thing as a 500bb downswing for winning players.

If we assume the probability distribution for streaks to be gaussian (a bell curve), we would see that the more extreme winning or losing streaks would be less probable. This probability distribution would be defined for all streaks, no matter how large. So if you play long enough, you will eventually encounter a losing streak of 500bb, 1000bb, and even 10000bb. Mind you, "long enough" might require hundreds of thousands of years... most of our careers dont last that long.

The fact that you brought up the qualification of "winning player" is strange to me. Even losing players have very large rushes upward. I agree with you that a winning player, starting with 500bb, would most likely never go broke if his earnings were added to his bankroll. This isnt the case for a losing player. But if a winning player starts a career with 500bb, and withdrawls money such that his bankroll is never over 500bb, he will eventually go broke provided his career is long enough.

Somewhere, the idea of convergence should be included in this argument, but Ive become a bit rusty since my course in Analysis.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I know it's more common in 6-max...but that's what I've been playing these days.

In the HUSH forum there was a thread where SEVERAL players posted their 300BB down-swings (and some were much larger than this).

Most were established winners.

Sthief said almost exactly what I was going to say.

If you have a 2% chance of a 300BB down-swing...then there is also a chance of catching those down-swings back to back.

It's exactly the same as losing to a 1-outer on consecutive hands.
If you play enough it will happen eventually.


Also - after the first 200-300BB's of your bankroll vanish you are CORRECT that you need to consider whether you are a winning player in the first place.
It is a big blow to one's confidence.
No matter how much you KNOW that such downswings CAN and WILL happen it also should occur to you that you are NOT playing winning poker anymore and that you have somehow developed some leaks into your game or just aren't concentrating appropraitely.

Stepping back in limits is an okay way to regain one's confidence, re-evaluate their game, AND protect one's bankroll when you start to get a little bit shorter than you are comfortable with.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

you dont know how much of me wishes you were right.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

the original poster has exactly the same thoughts as me. i agree with him.

you do not have 500BB if you are never going to use 300BB at the same level. you have 200BB at say 10-20 and 600BB at 5-10. That is the way you should be viewing your bankroll if you are going to move down limits when you lose 200BB of your 500BB. you are never going to be playing with the remaining 300BB at 10-20 so it is pointless viewing it as such.
Instead you should always be viewing your current level as risk money (in this example 200BB at 10-20) and if you lose it you can then drop down to 600BB at 5-10.

if you are saying you are going to move down whenever you lose a set amount, you do not have a bankroll, merely you are slowing the swings you experience.

for example, you could easily have a bankroll of $200 and play 2-4, ie 50BB. if you drop to $100 you move down to $1-2, if you drop again to $50 you play at $0.50-$1.

here you are playing with a 50BB bankroll and have a 0% risk of ruin as you will always have a bankroll. The reason for having such a large bankroll say 500BB is so you dont have to move down limits and constantly have swings, you want to be playing a set limit until you have won enough to move up.

players should either have a 50BB limit or a 1000BB limit imo. the 50BB bankroll means you are constantly going up and down, but have a 0% risk of ruin, the 1000BB means you never have to move down limit and can slowly progress.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Was this bankroll strategy what led to the following post:

[ QUOTE ]
Since I'm taking a well needed break from playing poker, I am watching instead. What table limits are you watching and what are you looking for in the play of hands that might help your game?


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

No, I'm back in school(changing careers)and I can't do well in school playing poker. I rather play poker instead so I'm taking a break in order to keep up with school. Was playing 20k hands/month this year. Been playing poker for many years now.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you arent arguing that there is no such thing as a 500bb downswing for winning players.


Actually I was, sorry I assumed this. With that said, how in the world can anyone be a winning player then with that kind of losing streak(s)???


If we assume the probability distribution for streaks to be gaussian (a bell curve), we would see that the more extreme winning or losing streaks would be less probable. This probability distribution would be defined for all streaks, no matter how large. So if you play long enough, you will eventually encounter a losing streak of 500bb, 1000bb, and even 10000bb. Mind you, "long enough" might require hundreds of thousands of years... most of our careers dont last that long.


Now we're getting deep.


The fact that you brought up the qualification of "winning player" is strange to me. Even losing players have very large rushes upward. I agree with you that a winning player, starting with 500bb, would most likely never go broke if his earnings were added to his bankroll. This isnt the case for a losing player. But if a winning player starts a career with 500bb, and withdrawls money such that his bankroll is never over 500bb, he will eventually go broke provided his career is long enough.


Why is it strange? I made the statement to fit the BR for never going broke. If your comfortable at a level and making good money, why not cash out down to your BR limit? Isn't that the whole idea? I'm not saying your BR is your life savings, sorry if you thought that.


Somewhere, the idea of convergence should be included in this argument, but Ive become a bit rusty since my course in Analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

If there was internet poker when I went through school I would have never graduated.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Yeah, it's horrible, I love poker. Even being a railbird takes up time but at least I don't have to stress about anything.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hear from everyone if your BR gets too low then it's time to play lower stakes. I disagree with this "if your at least a break even player or better". Here is why, you have a BR of 500BB, with that kind of player and BR means you should never go broke, EVER! This will handle any and all variances in your game. So what if you get down even 200BB, you have the BR for that reason and you will get even again. IMO if one has to play lower stakes then they were never a break even player at the stakes in the first place. Can someone explain to me why this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing two concepts, I think. The first is that our results over time are an accumulation of a number of independent events. Over a long enough time, if we have a true winrate then we can can predict with very good accuracy what our results will be.

In this respect, if you could keep playing at the same limit no matter what happened to your bankroll (i.e you could loan money interest free to your bankroll) you would never move down if you were a winning player because even if your bankroll moved into the negative numbers eventually it would move up into positive numbers. Of course for most of us, our bankroll really is our bankroll and we can't just add to it at will.

The second concept that you need to follow here, is that each hand is completely independent of every other. Likewise your future performance is completely independent of your past results.

What does this mean? It means that there is absolutely no difference from a future results standpoint between starting out with a 200 BB bankroll and having a bankroll that used to be 500 BB's but has shrunk to 200 BB's because of a vicious losing streak.

Lets say that you have two a winning player with a "true" winrate of 1.5 BB/100 and a SD of 16. With a 200 BB bankroll you can calculate the risk of ruin for both those players. And it will be exactly the same. If player A just scrounged together 200 BB's from outside sources and that's his starting Bankroll, and Player B used to have 500 BB's and has lost 300 BB's, it makes no difference. Their risk of ruin is exactly the same.


Assuming that each player is risk averse to exactly the osexactly the same degree, if the risk of ruin is too high for Player A, it will be too High for player B. Both of them should move to a lower limit.

I see what you want to say. Player B has just suffered a terrible run, losing 300 BB's. For him to go broke he will have to have suffered a 500 BB losing streak and for a winning player that's such a tremendously unlikely streak that it doesn't make sense for him to drop down.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. At 200 BB's he isn't somehow magically protected from dropping another 200 BB's just because he's lost 300 BB's. His risk of ruin is exactly the same as any other player with his winrate and standard deviation and CURRENT bankroll. Your future results are completely independent of past results.

Lets look at it another way, since you want to look at the overall accumulation of independent results (hands). Which player is more likely to have a 500 BB losing streak--The winning player with a 500 BB bankroll, or the player with the exact same wr and sd who has just dropped 300 BB's?

Looked at one more way. What is the liklihood that a player with a certain winrate and sd who has just gone on a 300 BB losing streak, will now immediately go on a 200 BB losing streak? It is exactly the same at that moment as at any other given point in his poker playing carreer. It has exactly the same liklihood as it would if you choose a point where he's just gone on a 1000BB heater, or a 20,000 hand breakeven streak, or whatever.

If you agree that it is possible for a winning player to have a 200 BB downswing, and if you further agree that 200 BB's is thus too small a Bankroll to start playing a given limit, then it follows necessarily that it is to small a bankroll for a player to continue to play that limit, no matter what their immediately preceeding results have been, including a 300 BB downswing.

Ok, one last crack at it. Because your future results are independent of your past results, there is simply no difference between a five hundred BB downsing and five 100 BB downswings back to back to back to back to back. I hope you agree that even great players can have 100 BB downswings.

--Zetack

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Interesting points on this thread.

On the one hand, as many posters have noted, a player with a 200BB bankroll has exactly the same risk of ruin as the identical player who started out with a 500BB bankroll but has been on a 300BB downswing (of course, this is treating each hand as an independent event + ignoring factors such as tilt, etc).

On the other hand, presumably the player who started with the 500BB decided on what risk of ruin factor he was willing to accept, and arrived at the 500BB size based on the factor. By moving down (effectively increasing the number of BB's he can play with), he is showing that he is actually much more risk adverse then his original calculation assumed. He should have have started with a bigger bankroll, which would have allowed he to stay at the higher limits for longer + increased his EV as expressed in dollars.

Perhaps this shows how you could use the mixed strategy to play at higher stakes for a given risk of ruin. Say I had a 4000 bankroll and decided that a 400BB bankroll gives me the risk of ruin I am willing to accept. The normal strategy would have me starting at 5/10 limits. But if I adapt the variable strategy, I could start at 10/20 (giving me 200BB),
move to 5/10 if I lose 100BB (Putting me at 200BB for the lower limit), and move down again if I lose another 100BB (giving me a final 200BB at 2/5). For the same 400BB my risk of ruin calculation said I needed, I could start at a higher limit and potentially increase my $EV as opposed to a flat strategy...

- The Wolf

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Personally from all the posts and info I no longer believe a BR is as important as I once thought. Even if your a winning player you can still lose a 500BB BR so what is the point of having one that big? I thought with a break even player or better with at least a 300BB would prevent one from going broke but obviously I was mistaken. I'm just going to do what I want in terms of my money management.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally from all the posts and info I no longer believe a BR is as important as I once thought. Even if your a winning player you can still lose a 500BB BR so what is the point of having one that big? I thought with a break even player or better with at least a 300BB would prevent one from going broke but obviously I was mistaken. I'm just going to do what I want in terms of my money management.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were in college. If you are, have you had no stats classes? Did you learn nothing from the posts, or are you being funny because you don't want to understand the points made about an acceptable ROR for any particular bankroll?

The 300BB listed so often as a reasonable starting bankroll assumes:

The player is a winner, at a rate of 1.5BB/100 hands (and for the sake of clarity, I would also add that this is over at least 50K hands)

This leaves you with a 5% chance of going broke if you never step down in limits. However, my own view is that I have a 5% element of ruin to "double my bankroll." Which means I don't spend any of the income I make playing until I drive that 300BB to 600BB, and then I reset my bankroll to whatever I am comfortable with and start again - with 300 units, and double that.

{by the way, it's pretty easy to see what you want for a bankroll given your win rate and SD; if you can't, use the search functions for it on 2+2 - I've shown it, but BruceZ is the master)

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

You obviously didn't read all the responses.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally from all the posts and info I no longer believe a BR is as important as I once thought. Even if your a winning player you can still lose a 500BB BR so what is the point of having one that big? I thought with a break even player or better with at least a 300BB would prevent one from going broke but obviously I was mistaken. I'm just going to do what I want in terms of my money management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright I have my sarcasm meter off.

Interesing lesson you have choosen to take away from this discussion. The proper lesson would be that yes, moving down in limits if your bankroll becomes too depleted for the limits you are at is the proper way to manage your bankroll. Instead you are going with, Big Bankrolls are stupid so I'll just play short.

A willingness to learn is actually helpful in poker. But learn or don't, as you will youngling.

Good luck to you. I suspect you may need it.

--Zetack

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Did I say I was going with a short BR or indicate what BR I was going to play with???

It is just a debate.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I'm curious what people think about playing short, say a roll of 250bb, so long as you are willing to move down if you lose half of it this would seen fine to me. 500bb seems excessive if you are going to move down as well, unless you need that much to avoid playing scared it just looks like overkill. ( obviously I'm not thinking its ok to play pro with a short br. )

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious what people think about playing short, say a roll of 250bb, so long as you are willing to move down if you lose half of it this would seen fine to me. 500bb seems excessive if you are going to move down as well, unless you need that much to avoid playing scared it just looks like overkill. ( obviously I'm not thinking its ok to play pro with a short br. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Even as a non-pro 500 BB is much better than 250 even if you move down when you lose a lot. At a 250 BB bankroll, if you are pulling money out of your bankroll as you win (say every time you hit 400 BB's you pull out 150 BB's) to stay around 250 BB's with the plan on dropping down if you lose half (down to 125 BB's) then its invevitable that you will have to drop down. 125 BB downswings are routine. If you pull money out of your 500 BB bankroll everytime you get up to 650 BB's you have a much better shot at not having to drop down in limits since 375 BB downswings are pretty rare.

--Zetack

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally from all the posts and info I no longer believe a BR is as important as I once thought. Even if your a winning player you can still lose a 500BB BR so what is the point of having one that big? I thought with a break even player or better with at least a 300BB would prevent one from going broke but obviously I was mistaken. I'm just going to do what I want in terms of my money management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why you need a bigger bankroll than 500BB if you're unwilling to move down.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

"Nothing is certain, except the fact that you can be certain of nothing in poker."
dogmeat


I like it.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Nothing is certain, except the fact that you can be certain of nothing in poker."
dogmeat


I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain that in texas hold them, a Royal Flush beats a full house.


--Zetack

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Nothing is certain, except the fact that you can be certain of nothing in poker."
dogmeat


I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain that in texas hold them, a Royal Flush beats a full house.


--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I guess you are right. I don't like it anymore. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Bankroll Formulas
http://support3.com/poker/bankroll/

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I personally think the posters on this site generally espouse what I would characterize as a "weak tight" approach to BR. Having 500 BB on hand for a game is completely ridiculous unless you're barely a winner at all. Even 300 BB is usually excessive, because for every good player that goes through a 300 BB downswing, there are many who never experience it. It is true that if you play poker long enough you will go through a 300 BB downswing, though everyone here seems to think this means it is somehow likely to happen to a given winning player in his lifetime. It isn't.

Many (not all) of the posts on here from "established" winners who have gone through lengthy downswings are, I believe, from people who are marginal winners with significant leaks in their game that get magnified by the frustration of a downswing. If you're a smart player, are more than a marginal winner (2+ at least), and if you can actually handle a 100 BB downswing without tilting away another 50 BB, you're highly unlikely to experience a 300 BB downswing in your lifetime. So relax about these doomsday BR requirements and play solid poker.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
though everyone here seems to think this means it is somehow likely to happen to a given winning player in his lifetime. It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree. It's not only likely, it's inevitable.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many players who have made it to limits above 15/30, logged at least 500k hands, and who haven't had at least 1 300BB tanker.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
though everyone here seems to think this means it is somehow likely to happen to a given winning player in his lifetime. It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree. It's not only likely, it's inevitable.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many players who have made it to limits above 15/30, logged at least 500k hands, and who haven't had at least 1 300BB tanker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honestly not trying to be disagreeable, so please don't take it that way, but I know many players like this. Probably 20 at least. Maybe they didn't tell me about their major downsings, but I believe they would have.

And for what it's worth, I have not experienced it, and I am a 15/30-30/60 player who has about 5 years and a million hands under my belt. Perhaps I have been very lucky, but I find that when I go on a 100BB downswing I am usually not playing well. The few times I have gone on 200+ streaks, poor play has been a *major* factor in the losses. I have no evidence or data to back my claims up, but I really do feel that a "pure" 300BB downswing where the player plays close to his A game and still loses 300BB through sheer bad luck is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. I hope it never happens to me, and at the risk of invoking the wrath of the poker gods, I don't expect it to.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

Its a lot easier to not tilt when your bankroll goes from 500BB to 400BB, than it is when your bankroll goes from 300BB to 200BB.

Also, being forced to move down by downswings is bad, because then you spend much more time recovering.

By the way, I am waiting for 700BB to play 20/40. Of course not all will be on a poker site; more than half will be in my bank account. It's for the idea of knowing it's there just in case.

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

If you're a winner, and you started playing at 300BB, just think how much further ahead you'd be instead of waiting for the extra 400BB ... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're a winner, and you started playing at 300BB, just think how much further ahead you'd be instead of waiting for the extra 400BB ... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the thing. How can you be sure you can beat a game you never played before?

Re: BR disagreement/fallacy
 

I don't use PT so what should an avg. SD be for both long handed NL and Limit?

Thanks