Roy Cooke article in Card Player is wrong.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
His main point being that internet hold 'em ring games require a 50% larger bankroll than live play.

No tipping and no jackpot drop unless desired should not increase but decrease bankroll requirements.

I've played probably 500,000 hands of online poker from $1-$2 to $5-$10 and have not deviated down more than 150 BB at any point.

I believe that bank roll requirement are much less for online winning players.

He usually has such good advice. I was surprised to see such an inaccurate assesment.

Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your WR online goes down (when compared to the same limit in B&M) and your SD goes up (because the online games are more aggressive)

Take these two factors together and you most assuredly need a bigger bankroll online.

[Mike Haven]

Obviously, from the responses, what I thought was wrong.

I'm not a multi-tabler, and, being a hobby player, I have never had to worry about my bankroll, so I haven't thought too much about the br issue. (That's my excuse for my ignorance on this topic.)

However, from an academic pov I am still having difficulty getting my head round it.

So, if someone decided to give 30 good players $200 each to play a table of $10-$20 each for him for the next four hours, that would be a fairly good low-risk idea to make a quick $5,000 or so?

We should form a mutual society and take turns in reaping such a cash bonus for one member every week.

[theghost]

12 players at 500 each sounds more appealing. Sitting with less than 12 BB is not good.

edit: and you would make ~$960 assuming 2bb/100 and 50 hands per hour.

[Posty123]

Something I didn't include in my original post.

I tightned up considerably when I left the B&M world. Mucking QJs/AJ/KTs under the gun is routine now. Playing 200 hands in 7 hours (including breaks) led me to play looser at the Casino. Being able to knock out 200 hands in 20 minutes helps keep marginal hands out of my playing range. My impression is that every winning player would tighten up on line, increasing the ev per hand played and thus reducing their fluctuations and required bankroll. That's what I found. I thought it would be a more common experience.

Good to hear everyone's comments and impressions. Very interesting discussion.

[Fraubump]

Another difference between online play and live play is bonuses/rakeback. My bankroll fluctuates a lot less on the downward side because it is constantly being propped up by bonuses. In general, this effect is more pronounced the lower you play: If you're playing 30/60, a $100 bonus for 1000 raked hands is at best 1/6 of a BB/100, so the effect is fairly negligible, while at .5/1, even if it takes 2000 hands to get 1000 raked, that's 5bb/100, which makes any negative swing much more unlikely. (My specific math may be off, but the general point is valid)

[DarkKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
Tipping and jack pot drop have to increase variance. That's just a fact.

Especially at the $1-$2 to $5-10 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they decrease winrate (if you include the toke - and the extra drop) varience shouldn't change much if at all

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Tapirboy:

We're talking about bankroll needed to play. Assuming you're a winning player, the more hands you play the more money you should win. That negates the swings you are talking about. I suggest you give my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics a good read. All of this is covered in there.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, your bankroll can remain relatively small as long as you never want the money for anything. You don't see the catch-22 in this? Treating poker as an end in itself is kind of silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man you really lost me on this one. Mason doesn't need me to confirm he's right. Mason is absolutely correct and I would suggest you get the book he recommends and read BruceZ's posts on the subject. You're thinking about this topic wrong. Do the math and you'll see what Mason is right.

The points you're making are in reality that the effects of being skilled dominate your variance at a faster rate. Put another way your point is that ones results converge to their true win rate at a much faster rate online. However, this doesn't mean you need a smaller bankroll for playing online since your risk of ruin is a function of your win rate, variance, and bankroll size. It just means you get into the "long run" at a much faster rate.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
His main point being that internet hold 'em ring games require a 50% larger bankroll than live play.

No tipping and no jackpot drop unless desired should not increase but decrease bankroll requirements.

I've played probably 500,000 hands of online poker from $1-$2 to $5-$10 and have not deviated down more than 150 BB at any point.

I believe that bank roll requirement are much less for online winning players.

He usually has such good advice. I was surprised to see such an inaccurate assesment.

Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that Cook is closer to being right than you are probably. I say this for two reasons:

1) You're win rate probably drops a little because the players tend to be better than at the same limits you play live and the information you get about your opponents is better live although these points are certainly open to debate.

2) I think a good player live is subject to less variance for a variety of reasons with one being that it's probably easier to read players and hands live than it is online FWIW. The reading players and hands part effects win rates and variance IMO.

With all that said I think playing online is much better than playing live from the standpoint of making money and having your skill dominate your results in a shorter period of time again FWIW.

[UATrewqaz]

How can so many intelligent people be squabbling over something very obvious.

How many hands and how quickly you play them has 0, nada, nothing, nill to do with bankroll requirements.

All increasing the number of tables and number of hands per hour does is speed the rate you reach the "final destination".

What's the difference between playing a million hands individually, one after the other, and playing 1 hand on 1 million tables simultaneously (if this were possible).

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Each hand is an independent event.

Your results are exactly the same after each set of million hands, regardless of how quickly you play them.

What is throwing people off is the "time" issue. If I'm a losing player I can milk my bankroll through a long period of time by playing very few hands.

Say I only play 100 hands a month. With a 300 BB bankroll, even if I'm a -3 BB/100 player I can play 100 months.

Summary: Playing more tables does not increase your chance of busting, it will simply speed up the process of you doing so.

As for Roy Cooke's point, he argues basically that your winrate will be less online (due to more aggressive players, etc.) and/or your variance will be higher, THUS the need for a larger bankroll.

* Thousandth Post (eye r0ck ur sox)

[Lestat]

What you're saying is certainly correct. The reason that people have a hard time understanding (or accepting) this, is because the more hands played (simultaneously), the more win rate drops, thus increasing bankroll requirements.