The Honesty and Bankroll Thread

[fimbulwinter]

Thought this needed to be said.

At times, i have played far above my bankroll.

I have deposited 2 buyins and built a bankroll from that

I have also deposited 2 buyins and lost it all while starting out. i sucked. i did this a few times.

The current roll I'm playing off (roll 2 after i killed my ancient 50NL roll buying a projector) came from a $500 deposit. after depositing, I decided to play 100NL. I knew my ROR would be higher. That was OK with me.

To those advocating a massive bankroll (20 buyins etc.) as a minimum, that's fine for a new game with a possibly low winrate, but IMO if you're building roll and know you're beating a game badly, it's probably better for you long-run if you take on a little more risk to get to an appropriate level where you can make decent money.

If you're playing under bonuses (as you should) I think you can get away with a much smaller starting roll.



Maybe this is because i just run good like a lucksack fish. I can honestly say that in all the poker i've played, i've never lost more than 6 buyins. It could be that I'm quick to leave if i feel myself tilting or it could be that im just amazingly lucky compared to most players. Every time i hear about a big slide, i hear "well, i ran bad, but i played bad too" and i think that it's a copout. maybe that 12 buyin slide was really only a 4 buyin slide that got magnified by tilt.


I guess the safe answer will always be a sklansky-esque 20 buyins etc., but honestly almost nobody plays SSNL for a living and those who do are obviously much better BR'd than that. I know I personally would not be where I am now had i not taken risks and i feel a little guilty and hypocritical standing by while good players are told that 25NL is the ceiling for their $500 roll. If you're willing to take on extra risks for a purpose at SSNL games (caveat: not bigger, higher variance ones) then I say do it.

fim

[ryanghall]

I've never been down more than 6 buyins, either. I'm on what I consider a bad run right now and I'm down 2 1/2 buyins (although it's magnified in my mind because I fairly recently moved up in stakes). I am glad I have 20x the buyin right now.

However, if my roll had ever been less than 20x the buyin, I feel that there's a very good chance that I might have been.

The reason is that I would be playing scared. Just because I don't play for a living doesn't mean that my bankroll isn't extremely important to me, and I'm sure most players feel this way as well.

I also feel to even begin to properly master a level, you should beat it for the 20 buyins needed to continue having 20 buyins at the next level.

It's my opinion that a player should feel very comfortable at the level they're at before they move up.

But that's just me, and I'm a fairly careful person. I've heard an interview with Daniel Negreanu where he said that he took a lot of risks to get where he's at today.

I'd just prefer not to - I'll sleep much easier

Ryan

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]

I have also deposited 2 buyins and lost it all while starting out. i sucked. i did this a few times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all started here =)

[ QUOTE ]

To those advocating a massive bankroll (20 buyins etc.) as a minimum, that's fine for a new game with a possibly low winrate, but IMO if you're building roll and know you're beating a game badly, it's probably better for you long-run if you take on a little more risk to get to an appropriate level where you can make decent money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this depends on your goals. I'm not a poker pro -- I play poker as a hobby. Who says you can't take a little risk? If you're trying to feed your family, 20 buy-ins is a good idea. If not, and you're not living in a cave with no future access to money ever again, what's the harm in giving it a shot?

The size of your bankroll relative to the stakes that you are playing is just another measure of risk -- but who says we all need to be so risk-averse?

For a little balance, though, I've had the unfortunate reality of taking some crucial five-or-six out beats every time I've "taken a shot" or moved up too quickly, and it's been seriously detrimental to my bankroll. The other side of this coin is that if you make a risky stakes jump and lose, you're set back even farther than you would have been if you'd just been risk-averse and played at a comfortable level. This is a very frustrating feeling.. but it's just risk/reward. Manage your bankroll in a way that's comfortable for you.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]

But that's just me, and I'm a fairly careful person. I've heard an interview with Daniel Negreanu where he said that he took a lot of risks to get where he's at today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you all read theBruiser's story?

I don't know many details, but he was posting on RGP and playing 1/2 NL less than two years ago. I remember reading a thread in Mid-High where someone doubted his credibility, and a few people called into question his "lucky run" that escalated him through some of the mid-stakes levels and into the world of an infinitely comfortable bankroll.

I don't know to what degree this is actually true for theBruiser, and I'm not going to speculate -- but it is very conceivable that short-term luck can have a very significant influence on the trajectory of your bankroll and the stakes that you play.

Poker is never a sure thing...no matter how good you are. You need to manage your money so that you are prepared for the worst, if you play a lot, you have probably seen how bad it can really get. Good players can still get bad cards and bad beats, and for very long periods of time sometimes. I had the worst month around March this year, it felt like crap, but i bounced back and it taught me a lot about the game. You may think you have the game beat, but there will be a time when you second guess your skills. It happens to the best of us. If youre fine with the possibility of losing half your roll in one day, than thats fine.

[fimbulwinter]

bruiser just went on a heater every time he moved up, which really helps you get big BR. same thing with bicyclekick, only more pronounced because it's NL. I'm having much the same experience since i moved to 5/10, although it has mattered slightly less for me since this is the top level i think i'll ever play regularly online and i wa already over-rolled for it.


I remember once when considering a jump in stakes, i decided to play my last day at my current level. during that time i flopped like 3 set over set's (where i had the overset) and flush over flush (mine all better) a few times too. then i proceeded to move up and run flat for 5K hands.

fim

[Ghazban]

This is off-topic, but why do you say that 5/10 is probably the highest you'll ever play regularly online?

[Voltron87]

good post fim


im in a similar boat, ive done similar things. if you always wait till you have 20 buy ins at ssnl you will end up wasting a lot of time at lower levels just grinding.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]

im in a similar boat, ive done similar things. if you always wait till you have 20 buy ins at ssnl you will end up wasting a lot of time at lower levels just grinding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easy to say for people who haven't run extremely poorly when moving up, but just consider what would have happened if you ran smack into a wall of luck when playing the higher game?

A month or two ago, I decided to slightly prematurely move up and only play 2/4 and 2/5 games. I also took one shot at 5/10.

What happened?
- I lost all-in preflop with AA to QQ
- I lost all-in on the turn with two pair to an underpair/gutshot
- I lost a set-over-set to a known aggressive player
- I lost all-in on the turn with two pair to an overpair

... and just like that, I'm down an almost-significant chunk of my bankroll, which would have been very manageable and routine had it been at lower stakes.

I'm not preaching being risk-averse... in fact, people who are overly risk-averse sometimes irritate me to a great degree. I am, however, trying to provide a little perspective from the other side -- why these bankroll recommendations exist in the first place, for example.

[theben]

[ QUOTE ]

If you're playing under bonuses (as you should) I think you can get away with a much smaller starting roll.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you play at the smaller end of the SSNL spectrum, bonuses can add an enourmous chunk to your roll very quickly and i think they definetly let you play above your roll faster / play underrolled. i definetly agree on this one