Bankroll Requirements

[Quicksilvre]

I don't think you're a nit, but since the OP does not depend on poker for income, I think a shot at a higher level is more reasonable than you think it is. If things go badly, it's not the end of the world; though I realize it's not a good thing, as long as one has the self-recognition that they're being beaten and can more down a level, then trying the next level up isn't a bad idea.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're a nit, but since the OP does not depend on poker for income, I think a shot at a higher level is more reasonable than you think it is. If things go badly, it's not the end of the world; though I realize it's not a good thing, as long as one has the self-recognition that they're being beaten and can more down a level, then trying the next level up isn't a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a player is a winning player and an equal winner at the stakes we are comparing, then the only judgement that needs to be made is value of time vs risk of ruin.

[beta1607]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you have a high paying job it is pretty hard to rebuild a bankroll for 5/10 or higher. If poker makes up 50% of your income, then the risk of taking shots at games you are underrolled to play is significant, regardless of what others here say. I'm sure some of you will call me a nit, and that's fine, but I simply disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not hard to rebuild a BR for 5/10, with bonus and rakeback it shouldnt take too recover the 500 you may lose taking a shot at 10/20. Someone who plays 50/100 taking a shot at 100/200 is a lot different then someone who playes 1/2 taking a shot at 2/4 or someone who plays 5/10 taking a shot at 10/20. I think you draw the line on where it becomes a big deal to lose the money a little too low.

I made a lot of money following one particular manic to the 10/20's a couple months ago even though I was not Bankrolled for it, the risk v. reward was too tempting to not take a shot. I know that Roland, Beer and LStream also miss this manic very much...

[Jeffage]

One more thing on this: I would highly recommend that those of you who haven't read "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" by Mason Malmuth pick it up as soon as possible. It covers this material quite well and is just gold all around - one of my favorite books. To be a winning poker player, you must also be a winning gambler and this book is an all time classic IMO.

Jeff

[mscags]

At the begining of the summer I found a player at H/L that was a walking ATM. This man was unreal. He would give me so much action. I used to only play 5-10 with him, but then I saw him venture into the 10-20 game a couple of times and had to follow him even though I didn't have the roll. This guy was so bad it was well worth it. Its a shame I haven't seen this man on since i took all of his money. Bholdr knows who I'm talking about.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this generally agreed upon by the forum?

I have been sticking to the 300BB for my bankroll as discussed in The Zoo, but I also do not depend on poker for an income and can understand what Andy is saying.

Is anyone else doing something similar? How else do you know when to move up or down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actully think the 300BB requirement is a bit liberal, and that conservativly you really want 600BB. I've personally had 200BB swings playing 3/6 stud. Having talked with people I who are knowledgeable about this issue, they feel that Malmuth's bankroll forumula's understate the needed bankroll by about 40% at a minimum.

If you have a small bankroll that can be replenished from non poker sources, then you should play at whatever limit you like. Looking to maximise EV, and not worry about going broke, because if you do, you can replace the money.

Above and beyond that, I'll play in any game that I think I have a positive expectation in, be it 1/2 hold'em or 20/40 Stud. I don't like the model of moving up and down, since it wastes time, it takes you a long time to rebuild your bankroll at a lower limit even if you are a winning player. Far better to be adequtely financed for the limit you want to play and then stick with it.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, I just think it's foolhardy. Unless you have a high paying job it is pretty hard to rebuild a bankroll for 5/10 or higher. If poker makes up 50% of your income, then the risk of taking shots at games you are underrolled to play is significant, regardless of what others here say. I'm sure some of you will call me a nit, and that's fine, but I simply disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you've brought up a very very important point that is only known to very few high stakes players. It's impossible to rebuild a poker bankroll for high limits via normal methods.

Long ago a far away,I had a family memeber who played 25/50 Draw in LA in the late 1970s. To put things in persepective a gallon of 87 leaded cost around 65cents. A good bankroll for that game was about 3/4 of a yearly income at the time. No way you could earn it back. So you played very carefully, and hoped that you didn't get broke in a triple pot (50/100).