The reverse Bankroll

Steve-O · #1 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 08:59 AM

Somewhat along the lines of Chris Ferguson's $1 to $20,000.

You are a winning tight/aggressive player, say 10 big blinds/100 up to $50 buy-in games, normal variance

Suppose I gave you $25, but you won't play in a game below $25 NL. Every time you get to 2 buy ins for the next level you move up. So, every new level you start with 2X the buy in. You'll do this until the $200 buy-in level where you will stay

How many people, or how many times would I have to give 1 person, $25 to be fairly certain (75%) one of them will reach this level?

Suppose you have been thinking of bankrolling a few people, so would it be in your best interest to bankroll 20 people minimally (1 buy-in a piece, each person hcan get 1 buy-in twice) or bankroll the best 5 at 8 buy-ins a piece? The best 5 are only slightly better than the others

Steve-O · #2 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 09:48 AM

Let me pose this a different way. You are a winning $25 NLHE player averaging about $200 a week.

Every week you take $25 of your winnings and deposit on site x to play for 6 hours.

you play $50 NLHE until you have $50, then you go to $100 NLHE. When you have $100 you go to $200 NLHE which you will play until the 6 hours is up.

I'm thinking this is like the lotto, little risk for big reward. Any merit to this idea guys?

This comes from the $10 Titan gives me every month for some weird reason, I try to parlay it into big money fast. which has worked 1 out of 3 times. I turned the $10 into $207 in about an hour 1 time, ! time I lost it the first hand I played, and another I was up to $50 before I lost it. My question is, can I turn it into $200 enough times to offset all the $10 losses?

Beavis68 · #3 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:21 AM

I am not good at deriving these stats problems. But let me give it a half assed shot.

to turn ten into 160 you need to double up four times. Lets say you are Phil Hellmuth and you have an 80% chance of doubling before you bust.

That gives you a 40% chance of making it. four times you have 160 6 times you lose 10. looks pretty good to me.

If you have 55% chance of doubling up, you drop to a 9% chance of making it. 9x you end up with 160 91x -10. still have a positive expectation.

if you think about it, it is really like playing a series of tournaments. Since you have an infinite BR. As long as you are a winning player is should work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Let me pose this a different way. You are a winning $25 NLHE player averaging about $200 a week.

Every week you take $25 of your winnings and deposit on site x to play for 6 hours.

you play $50 NLHE until you have $50, then you go to $100 NLHE. When you have $100 you go to $200 NLHE which you will play until the 6 hours is up.

I'm thinking this is like the lotto, little risk for big reward. Any merit to this idea guys?

This comes from the $10 Titan gives me every month for some weird reason, I try to parlay it into big money fast. which has worked 1 out of 3 times. I turned the $10 into $207 in about an hour 1 time, ! time I lost it the first hand I played, and another I was up to $50 before I lost it. My question is, can I turn it into $200 enough times to offset all the $10 losses?

Steve-O · #4 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:35 AM

So, do you think this would be the best way to move up in levels and or increase your bankroll? Play way above your bankroll 1 day a week hoping to score big? You could basically double your bankroll with 1 good session without always having your winnings at risk.

On a side note I think this would be a good way to clear your head after long weeks of grinding it out. As long as you continue to win at your normal level of course. If you have a bad week than you don't attempt this

surftheiop · #5 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:38 AM

Seems like a cool idea to me

Although this raises a question - if it +Ev to do it one day a week why wouldnt it be +EV to play like this everyday of the week which would infact just be playing way underrolled ?

Steve-O · #6 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:45 AM

Because technically you are not playing underolled, you are gambling with a small % of your bankroll. With no other money coming in a $1,000 bankroll wouldn't last long. However if you are adding $200 a week to it than pissing through $25 becomes insignificant.

You also may only play 5 minutes the underrolled way. And the jist of it is, you only lose $25. So you couldn't reload to keep doing it or you might go through $200 of your 1,000 roll in 1 day

Beavis68 · #7 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:46 AM

you need a large roll to make this profitable. You have to be able to regularly replace your buy in. If you do it under rolled you have somewhere between a 60 and 95% chance of losing your enitre roll.

surftheiop · #8 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:55 AM

Steve O - that makes alot of sense and seems like it would work but im just bothered by the fact that if it is Ev to do once a week it seems like doing it everyday should be 7 times the Ev over time.
I think you are being distracted by the risk vs reward. This is similar to a lottery , sure your 1 dollar could turn to 20,000,000 but buying a lottery ticket is not going to be +eV
But i dont have any real statistical knowledge or PT stats to back this up. im curious what bonch's stance on this matter would be.

Steve-O · #9 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 10:58 AM

Well you could do it after every winning session. If you win $100 you go and try to make a big score with $25 of it. But you have to be winning otherwise or like Beav said you will be going broke.

Steve-O · #10 (**permalink**) 03-19-2006, 11:07 AM

Whats amusing to me about this concept is, it breaks so many "golden rules" of poker

You are setting a stop loss limit

you are setting a stop win limit

you are playing under-rolled

you are playing with 1/2 a buy-in