Bankroll requirements for PP STT's

[SNOWBALL138]

I'm trying to become a single table tourneyment specialist on Party poker. What do people think the bankroll requirements are for various STT levels? My assumption so far has been that for 10-1 STT's $100 is good, and for $20, 200 is good, etc. Is this enough to cover standard fluctuations?

I turned $50 into 450 on the low level STT's, but then I set my bankroll on fire at the $50 STT's and had to go back down to lower levels.

I'm the kind of guy that doesn't like to reload my account on party poker. I always prefer to have one way transactions (i.e. cashouts).

[Sidekick]

I'll try and give you a reasonable answer before you possibly get torched for not searching on this topic (as it has been covered hundreds of times [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

The general consensus here on these boards seems to be you need at least 30 buy ins to weather the inevitable downswings. That means if you are playing the Party $10+$1 SNGs then you need a minimum of $330 as a starting bank roll. This number assumes that you are a solid winning player as well. If you aren't a winning player, then no BR is safe.

I personally am in the 50 buy in camp myself and I've seen some posters espouse even higher BRs.

No matter how good you are, you are going to have some major downswings from time to time. The less skilled you are the greater the downswings will be.

Some very good players who post on these boards have gone bust. Expect large swings in your BR, especially when you are just starting out. Don't assume that because you have won 'X' amount of dollars in your first 50-75 SNGs that you will continue to do so because you have proved that you can win over a large number of SNGs. If you have played less than 200 SNGs your sample size is little more than a blip and any ROI that you have so far is subject to drastic change.

Hope this helps.

[ericlambi]

I really question all the posters on here that believe 200 SNGs is a blip and may not represent your true capability. I have been playing SNGs for a while, but just created a spreadsheet to actually track my results this weekend. I've played 43 SNGs this weekend, here are some statistics:

Profit/SNG: $30.67
Std. Deviation: $76.63
t-value (95% confidence interval, DOF=42): 2.018

True profitability at SNGs with 95% confidence:

$7.09 <= Profit/SNG <= $54.26

If you see something wrong with my statistical analysis, please feel free to post. If you think statistics are some kind of hokum, and that this can't possibly be correct just because you don't believe it - don't bother to respond.

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
I really question all the posters on here that believe 200 SNGs is a blip and may not represent your true capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

This month I have played 283 SnGs all at the 30s level.
The first 112 gave me 44.64% ITM with a 41.23% RoI
The next 171 was 32.16 % ITM with 0.48% RoI

Over 2kplus tournyes at this same level I am a 25% roi player.

It isnt fiction my friend. A small sample size will always and forever be just a small sample size.

But as for bankroll (The real thread)

30x buy in is a pretty good mark to shoot for from the 10s-30s. It isnt foolproof even for a winning player, but comes with a low ror if you know how to play.

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
This month I have played 283 SnGs all at the 30s level.


[/ QUOTE ]

You had a couple of weeks off or something? Wondered why I didn't see you or ben on the empire leader board anymore.

[ericlambi]

Take a statistics class. 200 samples of normally distributed random variable is not a small sample.

[AleoMagus]

You are assuming the the posters on this board do not understand statistics, when in fact, you might be surprised how intimate a knowledge they have of it's real meaning.

First of all, while 200 SNGs may not be a small sample when calculating something like winning confidence, it is very small when trying to approximate what you describe in this statement

[ QUOTE ]
I really question all the posters on here that believe 200 SNGs is a blip and may not represent your true capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, lets examine a typical SNG player after he has played 200 SNGs. Lets assume he has so far acheived a ROI of 25% and that his SD is 1.7 buy-ins. So, at 50+5, this would give him a profit per tourney of $13.75 and a SD of $93.5.

What about his 'true capability' and what stats can tell us?

well, he can be 98% confident that he is a winning player, but just what kind of winning player? well, after this many tourneys, he can be 95% confident of a profit per tourney of $1 to $26 per tourney!

This means after 200 SNGs, he might have an ROI of anywhere from 1% to 47%! If that is what you define as a good representation of 'true capability' then fine. whatever.

Your sample of 43 is even more subject to statistical fallacy.

You have been running well. If you do not think that you have been, you are seriously in for dissapointment. I have tried to figure how you could be getting $30 per SNG with only a $76 SD and to me, it can only mean a huge and unsustainable ROI.

Sure, your stats tell you that you can be very confident that you are a winning player, but make no mistake, that is all that they are telling you. Do not be surprised if after 200, you are winning significantly less.

The worst part of doing these stats with a huge (unsustainable) ROI, is that you need to weigh in other's experiences when approximating in your own mind if you are actually equally likely to be earning $7 as $54. This is to say that there is a very small chance that you are earning even as much as you currently think that you are.


[ QUOTE ]
Take a statistics class

[/ QUOTE ]

comments like this... sheesh

Regards
Brad S

PS - I'm still very interested in what stakes you ahve been playing to get those numbers.

[Pokerscott]

[ QUOTE ]
I really question all the posters on here that believe 200 SNGs is a blip and may not represent your true capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on how good you performed and how good you think you are, 200 can give you pretty decent evidence of your skill level.

See this thread (and linked threads) for details...

ROI significance levels

Pokerscott

[AleoMagus]

Really, I thought about the many ways I could answer this post for a while. I even started typing a few different responses, but in the end I think all that there is to say is:

Play 200 more and then tell us what you think of your first 43 tourney sample.

Regards
Brad S

PS - What stakes are you playing to get those numbers?

[bball904]

[ QUOTE ]
Profit/SNG: $30.67
Std. Deviation: $76.63
t-value (95% confidence interval, DOF=42): 2.018

True profitability at SNGs with 95% confidence:

$7.09 <= Profit/SNG <= $54.26

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe that you can have 95% confidence that your long term profit is in that range after only 43 tournaments? How did you know that I needed a good laugh?

I took a few statistics classes on the way to my statistics degree and you, my friend, are stoned.