Party 15/30 BR - How much is enough? - Page 4

Rudbaeck · #31 02-03-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This post and much of this thread contains a common misconception. The 300 BB rule refers to a starting bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. The 300BB rule of thumb came from someone calculating the BR necessary for a rather substantial winner with small swings. It's about right for the regular Party 2/4 games or maybe 10/20 live in casinos where there are plenty of higher stakes than that.

When winrate gets lower and standard deviation grows a much, much bigger bankroll is needed. Mason has some nifty tables on this in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, BruceZ posted an even better formula on these boards.

scrub · #32 02-03-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This post and much of this thread contains a common misconception. The 300 BB rule refers to a starting bankroll. That is you start with 300 BB and let your BR grow, never withdrawl. If you do this you are probably pretty safe starting with 300 BB. That is because when you hit the eventual 300 BB losing streak, you likely will have much more than 300 BB.

On the other hand if you continuously draw down your BR to 300 BB, then you do not have nearly enough. As GOT said 1000BB is more like it.

The chance of at some time having a 300 BB losing streak is much greater than the chance of going broke starting with 300 BB and letting the BR grow.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

scrub

MaxPower · #33 02-03-2005, 12:03 PM

I believe Paul2432 is correct. Let's say you start with 300BB and a risk of ruin of 5%. Now everytime your bankroll gets to 350BB, you cash out 50BB.

If we had 1000 players who each had the same SD and win rate and they all managed their money this way, the percentage of them that would go broke is much higher than 5%.

Rudbaeck · #34 02-03-2005, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Paul2432 is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the historical reasons for originally recommending a 300BB bankroll are pretty unimportant. We all know it's way, way too small in aggressive games where there are decently many good players.

It's enough against bad, passive players. That's about it.

MaxPower · #35 02-03-2005, 12:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe Paul2432 is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the historical reasons for originally recommending a 300BB bankroll are pretty unimportant. We all know it's way, way too small in aggressive games where there are decently many good players.

It's enough against bad, passive players. That's about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my post. But another point I wanted to make is that this 300BB figure gets thrown around a lot and although it is probably a good estimate that Sklansky made, it varies so much based on skill level and game that it is meaningless for most people.

Paul2432 · #36 02-03-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post and much of this thread contains a common misconception. The 300 BB rule refers to a starting bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. The 300BB rule of thumb came from someone calculating the BR necessary for a rather substantial winner with small swings. It's about right for the regular Party 2/4 games or maybe 10/20 live in casinos where there are plenty of higher stakes than that.

When winrate gets lower and standard deviation grows a much, much bigger bankroll is needed. Mason has some nifty tables on this in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, BruceZ posted an even better formula on these boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

BruceZ's formula assumes an accumulating bankroll.

Paul

Rudbaeck · #37 02-03-2005, 02:38 PM

I stand corrected.

Then off course it makes the concept of bankroll alot less interesting, as you can't keep a 300BB bankroll (or whatever BruceZ's formula gives you) except for your very first session.

I wonder what a decent bankroll should be if we cash out the winnings at the end of the month to have a rather low risk of ruin. 1000BB is probably not enough.

Luckily I'm not the only blonde, seems the majority of poker writers assume you'll continously be able to cash out everything above 300BB with no significant risk of ruin.

TimM · #38 02-03-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BruceZ's formula assumes an accumulating bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

How to compensate for living expenses

But if you are simply withdrawing all money from your bankroll over a certain amount, and only allowing it to dip below, you need some other formula.

Paul2432 · #39 02-03-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post and much of this thread contains a common misconception. The 300 BB rule refers to a starting bankroll. That is you start with 300 BB and let your BR grow, never withdrawl. If you do this you are probably pretty safe starting with 300 BB. That is because when you hit the eventual 300 BB losing streak, you likely will have much more than 300 BB.

On the other hand if you continuously draw down your BR to 300 BB, then you do not have nearly enough. As GOT said 1000BB is more like it.

The chance of at some time having a 300 BB losing streak is much greater than the chance of going broke starting with 300 BB and letting the BR grow.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Which statement do you disagree with?

Paul

pokerjo22 · #40 02-03-2005, 04:07 PM

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I'm losing this. I don't understand how the equation ends up with so few variables. I understand how if I know my winrate and my standard deviation and my bankroll at any given instant, I can calculate the probability of hitting zero in X number of hands. So I'd always assumed the 300BB applied from 'right this moment'.

But now I'm confused as to where X comes from? Do we make some lifetime estimate of how many hands we'll play? Do we have to add age into the equation? Won't the vast number of hands now played by pro poker players increase their chances of going bust? Am I completely on the wrong track?