An established winning (recreational) player doesn't need a B/R

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

You proven you are a winning player.


[/ QUOTE ]

How did you do this without a BR?

[maddog2030]

Haha, well I assume that means you're probably good friends with him and are already fully aware of what he has to say. Or maybe you ARE him. Stop confusing me.

[codewarrior]

The plot thickens... No, I'm not AM. Have I been away that long?

[codewarrior]

I wasn't a "recreational" player before, and followed the B/R guidelines, moving up the levels in the "accepted" 2+2 manner?

Discuss.

[Mr_J]

"Re: An established winning (recreational) player doesn't need a B/R"

Any money they are willing to spend on poker is BR.

[codewarrior]

By definition, a B/R is that money set aside, such that, a winning player will never get broke by statistical corrections.

Discuss.

[Moonsugar]

BGO

[Mr_J]

"By definition, a B/R is that money set aside, such that, a winning player will never get broke by statistical corrections."

Money set aside in the future is still BR. He won't go broke. If he has 1k for poker this week and loses it, he hasn't lost his true bankroll. He has only lost his 'session' bankroll.

If a nine-to-fiver can put 1k a week towards poker every week for as long as he works, his bankroll is 1k x # of weeks he works.

[AleoMagus]

Maybe you ARE me and just don't know it. Ever see fight club?

And yes, I agree with the concept put forth in this thread.

Regards
Brad s

[Slim Pickens]

As soon as a proved it to myself that I am a winning player [albeit a modest (ROI-wise anyway) winner], I reverted to the AleoMagus method of bankroll management. I don't advocate anyone not proven to be a winning player try it.

Slim