Party NL Tables

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
300 big blinds is 3 buyins at pokerstars, and 6 at party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to BIG BETS, which according to pokertracker is 2x the big blind.

The 300bb rule refers to BIG BETS. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

You were replying directly to a post which stated:

[ QUOTE ]
Is it better to think in terms of buy-ins rather than big blinds? I made my rule 300 big blinds for NL

[/ QUOTE ]

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is assuming that the nut peddler only plays huge pots while the other guy never plays big pots. They are presumably playing at the same limits and would be playing pots of comparable sizes. The player that has a lower edge will have higher variance. This is an extremely basic gambling concept.

This is not to be confused by the fact that the player who pushes all his small edges will have a higher winrate; and with a large winrate you are less likely to be behind after a certain length of time.

For example, let's see you are flipping a coin and win $50 each time that it is heads but lose $25 each time it is tails (We'll call this Gamble A). You could start out with a bankroll of only $100 and have a pretty low risk of ruin because your winrate is so high -- unless you start with a horrid run of luck at the start, your bankroll will grow so fast that risk or ruin drops to nearly zero extremely quickly.

On the other hand, if you win $30 for heads but lose $25 for tails (Gamble B) a starting bankroll of $100 would not be nearly as comfortable. Even slightly bad luck will bankrupt you and it will take a long time to build up a safe bankroll.

So let's say that you are offered Gamble A once per day, and Gamble B 10 times per day. If you only have $100 to gamble with and no way to replace it, you should take Gamble A and pass on Gamble B. (It's correct to pass up on a +EV opportunity if doing so may allow you to take an even greater +EV opportunity later; google "Kelly Criterion" as well. Going bankrupt means you miss out on +EV gambles every day for the rest of your life.) With a very large bankroll you would take all of those opportunities.

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]


I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

ive been away for a few days, but it looks like a couple of other people have posted good explanations. honestly im kinda surprised you didnt know this off the bat, and didnt get it after thining about it for a bit, as i know you are a winning player and it is a pretty simple concept.

[MrFroggyX]

Fimbul:
You and I have disagreed before.. Mostly about sample size.. But this time I don't know what to say. I quote you:

then 5 buyins in a party-like structure is fine

This is very wrong. Your chance off going bust is huge!! I can't understand how you could give out a advice like that.. Do you want people to go bust!?
Here is my stats for 3 different NL levels on Party.. I will make a red dot each time I lost 5 buy ins or more in a session or combined.


Party NL$25: 5 buyins = $125.


Party NL$50: 5 buyins = $250.


Party NL$100: 5 buyins = $500.


I have counted (the red dots) to at least 11 times when I have dropped 5 or more buy ins over one or several sessions. (This is over 136,000 hands)
If I had followed your horrible advice.. Well I would have been really toast.


My Standard Deviation according to pokertracker is:
NL25:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 24.68 Big Bets(Big Blindx2)
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 32.72 Big Bets

NL50:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 22.44 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 29.82 Big Bets

NL100:
Standard Deviation/Hour: 20.00 Big Bets
Standard Deviation/100 Hands: 27.14 Big Bets


I don't care if you believe that you need 5 buy ins as a bankroll on Party.. But when you are giving out a bad advice like that to the readers off this board.. Well then someone have to say that you are wrong. Several posters have tried to do that. But you won't listen..
Please, If you don't know what you are talking about.. Don't give out advice that are totally insane!!

[soah]

Five buy-ins as an *initial* bankroll may be ok for a winning player in these games because within a few days they will have built up to 10+ buyins. And within a few weeks it will be 20 or 30 buyins.

However, if you continually remove money from your bankroll so that you always have exactly five buyins, then you will definately go bust.

And of course, the one big truth about risk of ruin is that the harder it is to replace your bankroll if you lose it, the more you need to protect it.

I could deposit $500 into Party and jump into the $100 capped games and be pretty sure that I wouldn't lose it. And if I did lose it, then what the hell, it only takes 3 minutes to move another $500 from my bank account. However, I'm not going to continually cash out and leave myself with only $500 for the start of every session. Sooner or later I'd have to have a bad session and lose it and need to reload. If I simply cashed out the money to my bank account I could deposit again easily. If I cashed out the money in order to buy food and pay the rent, then I'm screwed. Broke.

I guess my point is that people don't always mean the same thing when they refer to their bankroll. A purist would say that your bankroll is how much money you can lose before you have to quit playing. That's not really what most people are referring to though. For a low-stakes player losing your bankroll might just mean that you have to wait until your next paycheck to play again. Losing a "bankroll" consisting of one week's paycheck is not nearly the same as losing your past year's profits by jumping into the UB 25/50 game ($5,000 capped buy-in) with only five buy-ins.

(From this we can also conclude that if you have a "real" job then you can always start a new bankroll as needed, so going bust is less of a concern than it would be to a full-time player who has no other source of income.)

[MrFroggyX]

Disregard my post above!!

For some strange reason I missed this:
[ QUOTE ]
if you're ok playing conservative poker, then 5 buyins in a party-like structure is fine, but if you want to push every edge, you'll need many more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I missed the last.. crucial point.. I'm stupid.. And I'm sorry Fimbul.. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] (But I still don't think that 5 buyins is enough even if you play "conservative poker")

[fimbulwinter]

no offense taken

hats off to you for putting together the most well-documented posts ever.

fim

[MrFroggyX]

Ahh well.. It feels bad to flame another poster when it's me that have misunderstood your previous post.. I think I will take a brake from 2+2 for a while.. lol I have misunderstood several post lately... [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Anyway, once again I'm sorry Fimbul.. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[fimbulwinter]

hey, you've always been well-informed in your arguments, such discussion is +EV and makes us all better players

fim

[BradL]

[ QUOTE ]
your assertation

[/ QUOTE ]

The word you are looking for is assertion

Sorry but your post was condecending too.