Bankroll question

[nicky g]

What do people think is a reasonable bankroll to play in the Party $25 NLHE games?

[1800GAMBLER]

NL bankrolls could somewhat depend on your style and the game style. I play hugely aggressive, so i have huge swings and i'm known to busting out. I've heard 5 buy ins quoted but i don't think that is anywhere enough. I prefer at min 10. I just had to stop playing $500 buy ins due to withdrawing ready to move to aus for a year.

Even if you play fixed limit aggressive it's still limied.

You are prone to getting outdrawn less in NL but it's more costly when you do, so your variance is still around the same.

Go with 20 buy ins. That should withstand losing streaks.

[AeonBlues]

Mason Malmoth lays down the complex math on this subject in his book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics"

JayP was right when he said it depends a lot on style. And here's why: Your banroll requirement is determined by your hourly rate, and "standard deviation". Standard Deviation is the amount you can expect to win or lose in 1 hour. Think of how much money you would win in your best hour, and how much money you will lose in you worst. Average them, and bingo, your standard deviation. So you can see, that players that are really tight, have a lower deviation, and players that gamble it up, need a higher bank roll. Well, I went over my #'s with a friend who has a degree in math, and we came up with this. I play the $100 buy in NL games, and I make about $15 per hour, per table. My standard deviation is about $250. We kinda haggled over this, since a really bad hour, I'm stuck $300, and a really good hour, I'm up 4 to $500. Malmoth says that most players don't know their standard deviation, and I beleive that, cause you need to keep very acurate records to make a good determantion.

So anyway, I think my NL style leans more towards promoting smaller fluctuations, becaue I bet my strong hands very agressivly, and only ocasionaly over be my marginal hand, too keep my opponets guessing. Anyway, we settled on $4,000 for a 100% success rate. In other words, with a 4k bank, I should never go broke. If I was playing the $25 buy in, I would need a 1k bank. Now, you don't need that much if your lively hood doesn't depend on you not going broke. If I had another source of income I could work with a 3k bank, with about a 90% success rate, and a 2k bank with about 80%.

Mind you, all this is to the best of my understanding, and I'm no math expert.

AeonBlues

[J.A.Sucker]

If you are a good player, I don't think you'd need more than about 300 bucks. If you're extra cautious, maybe 500.

[Magician]

For $25 max buy-in I think even $100 is enough. But I've been known to sit there for 2 hours and maintain a bankroll never going above or below $5 my initial buy-in. Incredible discipline. But I do several tables at a time.

[DJA]

4X the buy-in is an unreasonable number. More often then not your money will grow if you are an above average player, but if you cashed out all of your winning, always leaving yourself $100.00, you will go broke very quickly IMO.

Now, I am not saying that you couldn't turn your $100 into a lot of money... if you didn't get unlucky early, I am saying that if you kept a maximum of $100 in your account, you would run out in no time.

Just My Thoughts,

[Wake up CALL]

In other words Nicky liberals like yourself need a larger bankroll than conservatives. It is that spend no matter the cost attitude!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[nicky g]

Don't worry I'll get it back by overtaxing hard working entrepreneurs [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]