FOR DAVID SKLANSKY OR MASON MALMUTH

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Gentlemen.......Is it possible for a winning player to start with a bankroll of 100BB as opposed to the "standard" of 300BB? Even though he is a winning player there is bound to be some losing and/or a run of bad cards. Is it just too unrealistic to start with 100BB? Please give your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

100 BB is okay ONLY if you drop down in limits when you lose money. You can play 3-6 with $600, but then if you go down to $400 switch to 2-4, down to $200 play 1-2, etc. If you're below $100, play $5+1 SNGs until you're back at $200.

[Zim]

Risk of Ruin becomes virtually negligible once you can downsize 4x.

100 units (assuming 1 BB/10 SD per 100 hands) gives you a Full Kelly bankroll with about a 13.5 % ROR ASSUMING you never downsize.

However, if you are a winning player at 5/10 and don`t mind the swings which might result in playing at .50/1, keeping a 100 unit bankroll should virtually eliminate the risk of ruin.

To illustrate it more clearly, if you lost 40 BBs at 5/10, then lost 40 units at 3/6, then lost 40 units at 2/4, then lost 50 units at 1/2, then lost 100 units at .5/1...

I would suspect you are not a winning player.

Best,
Zim

(But thats just off the top of my head, I`m new here... and could well be wrong.)

[Zim]

What are the odds that we would post the same thing at the same time?

Go figure.

(I think you stated it better.)

Best,
Zim

[donkeyradish]

If the winning player wins through being patient, extremely tight and never bluffing, they don't need nearly as big a bankroll as a flamboyant player who achieves an identical win rate through calculated risk taking & psychology.

[NMcNasty]

Ultimately what ruin means to a person is a result of opinion and personal financial situation.

I don't find bankroll to be that important at all provided that I have enough to cap at every round of betting for at least one hand.

I'm not going to play stakes lower than what I am capable of simply because there's a greater chance I will go broke.

[MrBlini]

I'm not sure I agree. At low limits, very tight but aggressive players can get sucked on an extraordinary number of times, and they lose gigantic pots. Excessively tight players also pay a lot of money in blinds per hand played and forego relatively low-risk speculative hands that are unlikely to get cracked when they flop well.

Moreover, players who understand psychological aspects of the game will tend to reduce their bankroll risk by avoiding bad decisions. Only if they seek out loose aggressive players will they be increasing their bankroll risk as a result.

[donkeyradish]

Maybe I picked a bad example, sorry. I was really trying to say that the 300BB guideline isn't fixed for all situations, it depends on how you play, which games, and who you play against.

A better example, I find that my results at Omaha/8 have much lower variance than in Holdem and there must be a reason. I think its because Omaha/8 at the low limits is more of a mechanical exercise, and bluffing is fairly unprofitable. Plus the fact that the pots are split between players a lot. And you get 4 hole cards to base your decisions on (this one is probably a red herring). Doesn't mean I do better at Omaha/8 (I don't) but I don't have big swings either.