Bankroll for NL Holdem Games

[DBowling]

I thinky my largest downswing was 16 buy ins. Its only happened once though. Id say typical swings are in the 3-5 range. I keep 40-50 buy ins in pp so i never need to worry about it.

[ricdaman]

I lost the 16 buy ins on UB, at their NL 100 tables. This was the worst loss I have ever taken. Never seen anything like it. As another poster in this thread said, 16 was his worst ever too.

The 60 buy-ins are not designed to truly absorb the swings. Rather they are designed to allow you to
(1) Continue to play at the same limit after a 15 buy-in downswing.
(2) Not go on tilt.
(3) To remain aggressive, and not worry about a small bankroll.

As I said, I only keep 30 buy-ins in my poker accounts. That is all I need to play with. However, should something really crazy happen, I have another 30 in my bank.

For any normal part-time player, 30 is enough. I think 15 is too little because I have seen losses larger than this. Again, 60 is suggested for full-time players. I simply can not afford a total loss of bankroll. I wouldn't be able to pay my bills. Therefore, I keep a large bankroll. That is why my suggestion is so high.

[Steve Chase]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some stats people have posted about NL:

Mosch claimed a win rate of 34 big blinds/100 and standard deviation of 97/100 with a $0.50 big blind.
AAmaz0n claimed a win rate of 15 BB/100 with a SD of 54/100 with a $0.50 big blind.
Guy McSucker claimed a win rate of 12 big blinds/100 with a SD of 60/100 with a $1 big blind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are these numbers for NL Holdem at Party?
Quite Interesting!

Thanks for your post. Very educational to me.

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]

The 60 buy-ins are not designed to truly absorb the swings. Rather they are designed to allow you to
(1) Continue to play at the same limit after a 15 buy-in downswing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the ability to continue playing the same limit after X number of losses what's meant when we talk about "absorbing swings"?