First Post In Tourneys Forum: Question on Bankroll

[maplepig]

I keep 40 buyin in my bankroll. My worst streak has cost me 25 buyin before. My result is based on 20-30% ROI for about 1200 games. If you can do better, I feel 27 is about sufficient.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I play SNGs, NL, limit, stud and stud-8 on much less money than that (per the limits I play). I am careful not to play too high per my bankroll of course. You have more than enough, assuming you're a long term winner, which I am sure you are, at least at small ring games (limit I assume?).

Now if you are inexperienced at tourneys, or if you are going to play anything other than no-limit hold'em (or are inexperienced at that), you may at times go for long runs without cashing. In that case, 1500 is 27 buy ins for the $55 tourneys, and if you get a really long losing streak going, you might see some of it disappearing. Your bankroll for 3-6 is nearly double the "textbook standard" of 300 big bets tho, so you have a cushion. If you're planning on playing limit hold'em SNGs, I strongly suggest playing on the sites with the very best structures, which is NOT partypoker. The best limit SNG structure is pokerstars. Really, for SNGs, NL hold'em is the best way to go, requiring less of a bankroll, because the luck factor is much diminished.

I don't think you need to keep your bankrolls separate, you have more than enough for the limits you are going to play at. If it helps you psychologically tho, that's fine.

[Bozeman]

For the record, RoR for these assumptions is:

r = exp(-2uB/sigma^2) = 1.6%

For a 1% RoR, bankroll should be $1672

formulas can be found here: RoR

[GuyOnTilt]

I only play NL SnG's. I hate limit tourneys becasuse, as you said, there seems to be a very large luck factor involved. The only reason I've been keeping my bankrolls seperate is so that I can track my results easier.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

In that case, 27 buy-ins should be more than enough to ride out any losing streaks that might occur before you start winning. I can't remember having any streaks of not making the money that lasted more than 9 times in a row, give or take a little bit.

Another thing I should mention is my tourney vs. ring game philosophy. In no limit, my play is MUCH different in tourneys than ring games. In a ring game, I'll put all my money in with a 51% advantage all day long. Implied odds rule ring games, and I often play quite loose, hoping to hit a big, but unexpected hand. In a tourney, I rarely exceed playing 15% of total hands by the time it's finished. This is because I play much tighter, skipping those longshot high implied odds hands, like 76 or 22, especially after the blinds start going up. I am not sure how much ring game experience you have, but you'll do fine I'm sure. Just follow the basic tenants of TPFAP and it's hard to NOT do good over the long run.

al

[jerome baker]

do people actually make 1 buy in per tourney?
im hitting $11.61/ tourney.
i've played 154 at 33+3 level.
1st-27
2nd-20
3rd-17

any comments are apreciated? thx. bozeman.

[Copernicus]

Your distribution of finishes is great, but too few in total. Making more than 1 buy-in per tourney is definitely possible at the two table SnGs at Stars.

Just guessing from your results, but it would seem you are either too loose overall or loosening up too soon. When you hit your hands you are building a nice stack that carries you into the higher finishes, but when you dont you are washing out completely.

In the prize structure the biggest jump is always from $0 to 3rd (or 4th) place money, so that is where you get the most leverage from improvement.

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
In the prize structure the biggest jump is always from $0 to 3rd (or 4th) place money, so that is where you get the most leverage from improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the Stars 2-tablers were the same increments all the way. 40-30-20-10-0.

And on all of the 1-table SNGs that I've played it's 50-30-20. And that means that the jump from 2nd to 1st is the same as 4th to 3rd.

As for the ROR that people are giving out, I'd have to say Copernicus, that you have to be in top few percent of players. And I don't doubt it, since you, Kurnson, OhKanada & Fossil Man consisently give the best advice in this forum. So, I'd say to others that are closer to the 30% ROR (that's my range), that you are doing fine. But it's encouraging to know that we have room for improvement.

[Bozeman]

No.

For SNG's it is very possible to get 50%+ ROI (my own and several other poster's results for 200+ tourneys, also I seem to recall that Daniel Negreanu said he could do this at $100+ tables), but 100% seems to only come for unsustainable periods (barring repeatable, catastrophically lame opponents, considerably lamer than even the average Party fish). I wonder what an expert could do against party players with a slower escalation, such as Paradise's structure.

My calculation used a conservative 36% ROI.