Stars 2/4 6-max bankroll?

[Willluck]

I understand that this game fluctuates similar to that of party 5/10 6 max. So...I would assume that a minimium bankroll of 300 BBs wouldn't suffice. So...600 BB?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that this game fluctuates similar to that of party 5/10 6 max. So...I would assume that a minimium bankroll of 300 BBs wouldn't suffice. So...600 BB?

[/ QUOTE ]

This game is actually a perfect step between the way Party 1/2 6m plays and party 5/10 6m, so good plan on playing it. I'd say anywhere in the range of 400-500 should be fine.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that this game fluctuates similar to that of party 5/10 6 max. So...I would assume that a minimium bankroll of 300 BBs wouldn't suffice. So...600 BB?

[/ QUOTE ]
Short-handed play gives you more hands per hour. This gives you the illusion of larger swings, just as multitabling gives the illusion of larger swings. Unless your win rate is lower, you probably don't need a larger bankroll than for full games.

Very generally, the bankroll you need is about c * SD^2/Edge, where c depends on your comfort level and ability to move down. Many players are happy using a value of c between 2 and 4.

Contrary to popular belief, the numerical (rather than anecdotal) standard deviations short-handed players report are not higher than in full games. If your edge is lower, you might need a larger bankroll.

[TomCollins]

You honestly think playing more hands doesn't give you more variance? You think the swings a lot of shorthanded players report are make believe or what?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
You honestly think playing more hands doesn't give you more variance? You think the swings a lot of shorthanded players report are make believe or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just reading the post makes me think that:
a. He honestly thinks that.
b. He thinks it's a misconception based on the pace of the game.

Really though, the rate of hands should have no impact on the required bankroll.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
You honestly think playing more hands doesn't give you more variance?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not per 100 hands, and that is what matters for sizing a bankroll.

[ QUOTE ]

You think the swings a lot of shorthanded players report are make believe or what?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think the posters in the Heads-Up & Short-handed forum are lying about their standard deviations as reported by PokerTracker?

Playing many tables, or playing more hands per hour, may give you the illusion of larger swings. If your win rate and standard deviation per 100 hands remain the same, you don't get larger swings. You get the same swings, just faster, and you don't need a larger bankroll.

Of course, some people win at a lower rate than in full games. Those people may experience larger downswings when they play short-handed.

[college_boy]

Yo Willluck, I would have 500bb ready. It might take some time to adjust to 6-max.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing many tables, or playing more hands per hour, may give you the illusion of larger swings. If your win rate and standard deviation per 100 hands remain the same, you don't get larger swings. You get the same swings, just faster, and you don't need a larger bankroll.

Of course, some people win at a lower rate than in full games. Those people may experience larger downswings when they play short-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all true, of course.

The problem with short handed play is that the swings ARE larger. Don't take less than 500BB.

The reason that the swings are larger is that you play more hands. Not only does the game play faster (more hands/hour which doesn't change anything from a bankroll perspective), but you will actually play about 2x as many hands of the ones you are dealt and most of them will be played for a raise.

TAG VPIP in SH games is about 30% and PFR is about 20%. All the raising with more marginal hands, sometimes OOP, causes the much larger fluctutations in variance.

These fluctuations are necessary because if you don't play this way, you will be very predictable, and not win anything when you pick up a hand.

You will still be paying blinds while you wait for a hand too.

Blind play is extremely important in the SH games. You will be in the blind 33% of the time, at least. Compare this to 20% of a full game.

Notice that VPIP rates for TAGs are quite close to these blind ratio's. BTW, this remains true, even as the game goes shorter. For example, HU you should be playing with a VPIP of around 50%.

Hope this makes sense.

Dov

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing many tables, or playing more hands per hour, may give you the illusion of larger swings. If your win rate and standard deviation per 100 hands remain the same, you don't get larger swings. You get the same swings, just faster, and you don't need a larger bankroll.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with short handed play is that the swings ARE larger.

... you will actually play about 2x as many hands of the ones you are dealt and most of them will be played for a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, exactly how large do you think the typical SD is in short-handed play, and how large do you think the typical SD is in full games? Please specify figures in BB/100.

The above passage seems to suggest you think the standard deviation should be about twice as great. I don't believe that at all.

[TomCollins]

Here is a simple question. I don't play full tables, so I don't have anything to compare to.

Do you play a higher % of hands shorthanded or full handed?