[AleoMagus]

Yes, money management...

In my little hiatus from the poker world, I have been giving some thought to this subject and I though I'd post a few of my opinions.

I see a great deal of posts on this forum about sng bankroll requirements. Some of you say as few as 10 buy ins is sufficient, some of you say 30 or more. In the past I myself have stated responses similar to this.

More and more though, I just think it doesn't make much sense answering. The reason I say this is becasue probably 99.9% of all who are asking what they need have jobs. Those who are asking and don't have jobs should probably not be playing poker because if they don't know the answer they aren't gonna survive off of poker for long. If you have a job, who cares how many buy-ins you have?

In fact, even if you don't have a job, who really cares? I know of many succesful gamblers who notoriously 'overbet' their bankroll. They get broke along the way sometimes but many are still sucessful in the long run.

The point is - If you are a winner, and getting your money in with the best of it - you will win in the long run anyways. If you get broke along the way a few times, that's your preference. Some can deal with that, some can't. Some will be psychologically affected by getting broke, but some won't be fazed at all.

On the flip side - If you are a loser, you should maybe not be playing in the first place. If you are a loser trying to improve, bankroll requirements really only dictate how many tourneys you can play in (to get better before you go broke).

So, If you have a job and can reload with every paycheck (for a while until you finally get a return anyways) then who cares how many buy-ins you have. If you feel like playing $200 sngs then play $200 sngs. If you can only afford one every two weeks then so be it. If you lose, you will be playing no poker for two weeks. If you are a winning player though, you will not lose forever.

I believe that Ken Uston had this approach to Blackjack. He was (arguably) one of the very best counters ever but he claims he almost always bet with high risk of ruin compared to what many experts recommended. He was comfortable with this level of risk and ultimately he knew he would come out ahead.

I think if you have a job, and you are a winner then all you neeed is enough to keep you in the game till the next paycheck. For some that might mean 5 buy-ins. For some, it might be as high as 30.

Lets face it, no bankroll will keep you in the game forever anyways. There will always be a risk of ruin. How high this risk of ruin is is a personal preference. I believe that a player who is a winner and who makes the money ~50% of the time needs only about 11 Buy-ins to have a 5% risk of ruin in the long run. That may be wrong but I know I read it sometime on this site (take that for what it is worth)

Yes, I suppose going broke might mean that you miss future betting opportunities until you get back in the game. That can definitely have a cost, but so can playing below your level. Now, I realize that is a dangerous thing to say here because most bad players make the opposite mistake and don't need encouragement to move up in stakes. Still, I suspect many a veteran grinder wishes that they had taken more chances along the way.

I also suspect that many a world champion decided 'Hey, I don't have the money to play this game, but damn it... I can beat these guys'.

Truth be told, I think the best idea is somewhere in between (for me anyways). I think a good bankroll is a good idea, but I also think that the occasional big jump in limits can only improve your game and will ultimately reap great rewards. I once suggested a plan where a player allows themself a big tourney at certain bankroll growth points. I still think this is a good idea. The bankroll may still be insufficient to play that higher level on a sustained basis (with low risk of ruin anyways) but that lone tourney (or ring game) will still utimately return it's positive expectation if there is one. You will still stay afloat because you will only be playing that tourney as an occasional change from a regular schedule of smaller buy-ins and you will still make money because eventually, if you are good enough to beat the bigger game, you will.

If psychological factors are a big deal to your play, then maybe bankroll is very important, but if your game is very solid no matter what you bankroll looks like then it might not matter as much. I know nobody is immune to getting rattled but some are better than others, and some can play even better when it is their last 100 dollars on the line.

Any Thoughts?
Brad S