Time to take it off the table? - Page 3

nu2mdwst2 · #21 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beavis68

I think these factors are true for limit, not no-limit and bonch and steve-o pointed out.

Umm, bullshit. These factors are true for any game, and equally important regardless of the limits. The fact that you can lose 1/3 of your bankroll in one hand is a good reason to get up, but in no way correlates to fatigue and basic playing conditions. And fuck that, if the game is good, i'll risk that portion of my bankroll to make an even bigger score, especially if i feel im owning the table.

WotaWaster · #22 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 03:56 AM

This happens to me on a smaler scale quite frequently. I buy into the $200NL with just $100 and get my stack to about $300-$400. I usually continue playing until I get in a situation like:

I raise preflop with AK flop comes down AT3 and I have a maniac betting into me. If I have $100 infront of me, I push all in expect to be called By Ax, however Ax may equal AT or A3 and he could also of course have trips. I know if I play the hand I will have to put my whole $300 on the line and I am not prepared to do it with 1 pair, even against a maniac.

This is when I leave the table.

There is a massive difference between Limit and No Limit.

If you get dealt KK in Limit and end up in a heads up capped pot preflop and fear you may have ran into aces you know you can see a showdown for just 5 big bets.

In NL, you don't have that luxury, When there's a lot of Preflop action you know it's probably going to cost you all your chips at some point if you play KK, and are you prepared to put 1/3 of your BR on the line with KK Preflop

I would need a good read on a player to call 1/3 of my BR PF with KK, rather than not to call.

Beavis68 · #23 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nu2mdwst2

Umm, bullshit. These factors are true for any game, and equally important regardless of the limits.

1. The fact that you can lose 1/3 of your bankroll in one hand is a good reason to get up, but in no way correlates to fatigue and basic playing conditions.

2. And fuck that, if the game is good, i'll risk that portion of my bankroll to make an even bigger score, especially if i feel im owning the table.

1. I have no idea what you are saying.

2. If you continually throw BR requirements out the window because you think you are better than the table your risk of ruin increases greatly, and you will have a very hard time maintaining a BR.

Steve-O · #24 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 08:56 AM

It really depends on 1 major thing; can you replace your bankroll? Even the capability of slowly replacing your bankroll can allow you to take 'chances' like this. remember, you are rolled for the $100 games, losing the $600 still leaves you rolled for it, just not as comfortably.

If you can't replace your roll than you are either, a bit of a moron, or have a slight gambling problem, to take chances like this. Eventually you will be in hot water doing these things.

Fishodeath · #25 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 08:57 AM

This situation wouldnt happen to me as I almost always leave the table if I've doubled my buy-in, and definatly leave if I've tripled up. Even if I triple up first hand.

Marm · #26 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-O

It really depends on 1 major thing; can you replace your bankroll? .

Then you need to start doing your BR math different. If you can replace it, then you should (or could) consider a part of the funds available to replace it as part of your bank. There is a link in the Newbie FAQ to the replaceable bankroll thread we had last year.

Marm · #27 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishodeath

This situation wouldnt happen to me as I almost always leave the table if I've doubled my buy-in, and definatly leave if I've tripled up. Even if I triple up first hand.

Stop qins/losses are bad thing. Realizing that you may lose 1/3 of your bank in one hand is a good thing.

Protecting your stake at a table just because you have won or lost is a bad idea. Look at table conditions before you leave. Is it a profitbale game? Are you fit to play? Do you have more urgent things to do? These all lead to a higher win rate and more profits, which is one part of bankroll management. I think BR management takes precedence over turning a profit, especially in situations where normally small fluctuations in variance can seriously harm you.

Steve-O · #28 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:40 AM

If I have $1,000 why would I need to consider money I could add to that, part of my bankroll? It isn't. It could become part of it in a deperate situation, but at the moment it has nothing to do with my bankroll.

An example: if I had to, I could add $100 a week back into my bankroll, doesn't make it part of my current bankroll. It just makes my current bankroll a little more expendable since I can replenish some losses if need be.

How can I add money I don't have at the moment? If I can add $100 a week does that mean I should add $100,000 because i plan on living 50 more years? All it means is that I can compensate for some losses if need be. I am not putting that money into my bankroll unless I absolutely need to, otherwise it goes toward other things.

I'm the one who wrote that bit about replacable bankrolls btw.

Marm · #29 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:44 AM

I know... the link wasn't for you numbnuts

. I didn't say we should add it now, jsut that we can Consider it part of our existing bank in terms of what limits to play. Risk of ruin (with ruin being ireplaceable loss of the bank) is reduced when you can easily replace our bank. Call it the Replaceable Bankroll fudge factor.

Steve-O · #30 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:46 AM

There is nothing set in stone about bankrolls. There are variables, here is one of my articles that explains it fairly well http://www.pokerforums.org/articles/2/

Here's the excerpt that applies here

Quote:

Can You Replenish Your Bankroll from an Outside Source?
Someone who can add $100 from their paycheck every week to cover any poker losses they sustained will not require a bankroll as large as someone who has no way other than poker to replenish their bankroll.

Compare these two scenarios:

Geoff has a 10 buy-in bankroll and has a bad run of cards culminating in the loss of 5 buy-ins, so he correctly drops down in limits.

Bob on the other hand, has a 10 buy-in bankroll and also had a bad run of cards costing him half of his roll. However, unlike Geoff, Bob adds 3 buy-ins from an outside source and rides out his losing streak without having to drop back in limits.

They both made the correct decision in terms of their bankrolls, so why are their two situations drastically different? Because, Bob can continue to play the higher limit until his bad streak comes to an end, allowing him to recoup those losses faster. Geoff will be trying to recoup $10/$20 losses at the $5/$10 tables while Bob will still be playing $10/$20.

If you are unable to replenish part of your bankroll from an outside source, I recommend adding 10 buy-ins to your bankroll requirements.

Now that we have determined the four variables let’s get a little better acquainted with Bob and Geoff, and take a closer look at the bankroll each might require:

Bob has about a year of experience playing poker and has become a winning player. Bob has a good job but wants to start playing $10/$20 Hold’ Em on the internet for extra income. Bob is a pretty grounded guy who realizes there will be ups and downs in the beginning of this undertaking. How many buy-ins should Bob have in order to start playing $10/$20 Hold’ Em?

First, we’ll begin with our 10 buy-in minimum rule. Now, Bob is a grounded guy, therefore he will be willing to move down in limits and will stay emotionally stable about losses. Bob also has a good job, so he will be able to replenish some losses to his bankroll. However, Bob is also a newer player, so his variance will probably be on the high side. Because of this, Bob should add 5 buy-ins to his bankroll. Therefore, I would recommend a 15 buy-in bankroll for Bob, or $7,500 for $10/$20 Hold’ Em.

Geoff has about 2 years of experience playing internet poker, and relies on his poker winnings as his only source of income. Recently Geoff has been contemplating moving up to $10/$20 Hold’ Em. Geoff is very competitive and doesn’t like losing. How many buy-ins should Geoff have in order to start playing $10/$20 Hold’ Em?

Again we will start with our 10 buy-in minimum. Unlike Bob, Geoff is emotional and competitive so he is unlikely to drop back down in stakes. Geoff should thus add 5 buy-ins for being emotional, and 5 buy-ins for having an unwillingness to drop down in limits.

Geoff is a little further along than Bob in experience and a proven winner, so his variance should be lower. Geoff also has no way other than poker of replenishing his bankroll so he should add a further 10 buy-ins. Therefore, I would recommend that Geoff start with a 30 buy-in bankroll, or $15,000 for $10/$20 Hold’ Em.

Although both players in the examples above were playing the same stakes, each needed different bankrolls because of their style of play, personality traits, and income sources. When determining your own bankroll needs remember to go over all of these factors, and most importantly be honest when you evaluate yourself.

To sum it up: Being able to replenish your bankroll just allows you to play with fewer buy-ins than someone who can't. It is more of a problem for the player who can't replenish than it is an asset for the player who can