Bankroll Requirements.

[MrWizard]

I expect to lose on some investments. I accept it. I never bring money to the table with the intent to lose it, but sometimes it happens and thats just part of the game. I find that as long as I accept the risks I am better at dealing with an investment that goes belly up. It would be a lot harder to deal with losing an investment of your whole roll, and for that reason I don't recommend playing with the whole thing.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
What keeps me from going broke is research and careful investing (paying attention, and picking tables well, and bringing the right amount of money to the table).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't include 'bankroll management' in this equation, then you're just gambling. It's not a job, it's not a livelihood, and it's not an investment. It's just entertainment until you go broke.

And you will go broke without bankroll management.

That's not to say you can't move up without taking shots, or even that you shouln't take shots. But even taking a shot is something that you have to not do with reckless abandon. I've written recently several times about taking shots. Do a search if you want my advice on how to do it.

[elus2]

[ QUOTE ]
No reason to insult me. My point of view is that multi tabling at NL tables is only one way to make money, and it is more like a job. The other way would be to play higher limits and play one table at a time. I play shorthanded NL, and I doubt that you could succeed at higher limits if you were multi-tabling.

By playing multiple tables, you ignore a big part of NLHE. You can't pay attention to everything that is happening at the table. It seems to me that it would be hard to improve your poker if you're not paying attention. I would rather be observant and successful at a higher limit than play 7 tables at once.

For my goals bankroll requirements seem to slow down progress, for the multi-tabler, bankroll requirements probably keep you from going bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is not an insult. i sincerely believe that you should read up on the definition of variance and how it applies to poker. there is a reason why poker players will not sit with their entire roll on one table. this is a volume game. the more hands we get to play the more money we make. if we are out before we reach a large enough number of hands to show a decent profit then it doesn't really matter does it. if i am 8 tabling and winning 8ptbb/100 at 100nl, i would need to make 16ptbb/100 at one table 400nl. i can play 100nl with ~2.5k. playing 400nl with only 2.5k would entail taking on a lot of risk. there is a high chance of going broke. so essentially i am making the same amount of money at 100nl while minimizing my variance. who cares if it is 'like a job'. i like money and so do many of the people here. if i wanted to have fun i wouldn't play poker. there are so many other things in life that i can derive pleasure from rather than busting suckas on higher limits with my 2 buy-in bankroll.

[pokerjoker]

[ QUOTE ]
you're not reducing variance. you're just playing more hands per hour. if you want to reduce variance the only way to do it would be to make your bets smaller, stop playing in raised pots, etc. of course this will probably have the added effect of lowering winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

you said it better than me...basically multitabling makes u play tighter and thus probably reduces variance. I didn't mean it as a mathmatical thing, more psychological.

[MrWizard]

lol. You make the assumption that I'm all about "bustin suckas" at the high limits and "havin fun". You're right, its not about fun, its about making money. I feel that I have the best chance at making serious cash if i can learn to dominate the bigger and biggest games. To get to those games I apply a strategy that allows for me to take shots more often when the setting is right.

[MrWizard]

If you play poker and think that its NOT gambling then you need to go back to square one.

[amoeba]

do what works for you.

cheers

amoeba

[MrWizard]

That was a refreshing article, thanks for that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I still happy with my strategy for the game of my choice, which is short handed NL. I hope I haven't made it seem like I think its a good idea to risk your whole roll on a dream. I do think its okay to try and build your roll when the situation is right. I will continue to "take a stab" when the setting is right. Multi tabling is just not for me, especially short handed. Also it seemed that the article was written for limit games.