Backers? little content, but for me!

[ggbman]

Wrong. This is wrong because when playing 4 tables. you can easily drop 100BB in a day. Almost no one can lose 1/3 of their bankroll and play their best game the next day. Also, the variance of many of the online games would dictate that a 300BB bankroll is conservative. Ask very good poker players if they have every had a 300 BB downswing. I would guess that a lot of them have. How do you think they kept playing? It's because 300 BB is not enough, epecially when you take pyschology into account with multi-tabling online.

[DeucesUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. This is wrong because when playing 4 tables. you can easily drop 100BB in a day. Almost no one can lose 1/3 of their bankroll and play their best game the next day. Also, the variance of many of the online games would dictate that a 300BB bankroll is conservative. Ask very good poker players if they have every had a 300 BB downswing. I would guess that a lot of them have. How do you think they kept playing? It's because 300 BB is not enough, epecially when you take pyschology into account with multi-tabling online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. This is wrong because when playing 1 table. you can easily drop 100BB in a 4 days. Almost no one can lose 1/3 of their bankroll and play their best game on the 5th day. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The rest of you statement may, however, be correct in certain situations (SH'ed play in aggressive games for example).

[Rudbaeck]

It does change slightly actually, if you actually calculate your necessary bankroll instead of going by rule of thumb.

Your win rate will drop some and your variance will go up some, making a bigger bankroll necessary. (300BB is for a 3BB/100 winner with a well controlled variance.)

[illguitar]

Yeah, so I've taken a lot of heat for these posts, which, were by my own admition more than a bit overkilled. I should've chosen one area and stuck to it. The sarcastic responses were hilarious, most of them anyway. The flames were well-desrved, and the advice was both helpful and insightful. Re-reading my post, it is so over-the-top and emotion driven I laughed out loud. I'm sorry I subjected all of you to this, but I really have learned some things about backers, etc. Since I don't have any stats on myself, I will get a crappy job and continue to play low-limits and increase my bankroll.

I am cross-posting this to help you all understand that I understand how annoying this was. I'm sorry, won't happen again.

[ggbman]

Glad you feel you benefitted from the experience, and best of luck to you! Also on a side note, regarding the 300BB debate. If you lose 100 BB over any time period, be it a day or a week, you no longer have a sefficient role to play at your stake level. This is why 300 BB is nogt quite enough in my opinion.

[Jack Fate]

[ QUOTE ]
It does change slightly actually, if you actually calculate your necessary bankroll instead of going by rule of thumb.

Your win rate will drop some and your variance will go up some, making a bigger bankroll necessary. (300BB is for a 3BB/100 winner with a well controlled variance.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying this is because you think you will play differently playing 2 tables as opposed to one table? If so, yeah i agree you're win rate per table probably does drop a little. I'm not sure the SD per table will really increase though.

Now, if we make the assumption that we can play each of the 2 tables equally as well as we could play one table alone, then there is absolutely no change in the bankroll requirement.

Let s = hourly standard deviation for one table, let u = win rate for one table. Then Bankroll

b = (3*s)^2/4u.

Now, let S = hourly standard deviation for playing 2 tables then S = sqrt(2)*s. And let U = hourly win rate for playing 2 tables, then U = 2u. So bankroll for playing 2 tables is

B = (3*S)^2/4U = (3*sqrt(2)*s)^2/4*2u = (3*s)^2/4u.

So, you can see the bankroll requirement is the same so long as we assume that we can play each of the 2 tables equally as well as we can play one table.

[K C]

I don't think you'll have much luck getting a backer based upon all this (unless you can find some rich older chick hehe).

A few comments though: How much you need to start out with trying to earn a living at this is going to depend a lot on what the "opportunity cost" of the decision is. If you've got a 6 figure job, for instance, I wouldn't leave it unless you are both making significantly more at this and have the bankroll size to ensure it continues. If you're flipping burgers somewhere though, and can get another job easily, the equation is going to be a lot different of course, although you're still going to have to earn more than you're getting now.

From what you've said, the first thing you need to do is protect your bankroll a lot more. Buying Xmas gifts with it for instance is a bad idea when it's this small [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Nice I.Q. and memory there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Mine's over 160 but I can't remember a damn thing so you got me there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The most important thing at this point is that you've got to be patient. Continue developing your poker skills, and one day, not too far off, perhaps you'll have a legitimate shot at doing this for a living, and without anyone with their hand in your pocket, which you do not want.

Best of luck
KC
http://kingcobrapoker.com

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
I have played Hold em, and won, as high as 30/60. I played it 3 times and won twice, the third time losing relatively a little.

[/ QUOTE ]
i know lots of people who have won two out of three sessions playing mid-limit hold 'em. yet, i would not stake any of them unless it was using a wooden stake to nail them to the table so that they could not leave and would give all of the money back.

surely someone with a 140 IQ understands why your post is ludicrous.

get a job and play poker as a hobby. allow me to quote paul phillips on this one since he is more articulare than i am:

"My advice to aspiring pros is to change aspirations. Poker seems much more glamorous than it actually is, and for every player who is living the dream, there are dozens who aren't. If you're smart enough to succeed at this game, you're smart enough to succeed in the real world, with much greater satisfaction. If you don't want to work for “the man”, then start your own company and put your efforts into that.

I think poker is a great hobby but a very poor choice of profession. I'm concerned that the current poker craze is going to leave us with legions who eventually discover that poker isn't all it's cracked up to be, but who have also rendered themselves largely unemployable."

good luck,
tpir

[theredpill]

Legions of people who are unemployable ? Guys walking around who haven't showered in 3 days. Belching and farting freely in public, scratching armpits, etc....is this what you mean ?