Posted Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:35 pm GMT by MasterMike
Ok, ive started with 1.75 (transfered to me) and am up to about 200 (70 bucks cashed out/transfered)bucks over on and off playing for about 8 months. I play at .05/.1 and seem to have made a decent amount of success. I feel comfortable there but ive seen people play .5/.1 with 500 in their bank.
Just curious, whats the recommended amount per level? Im really itching to get to .1/.25 because then i feel like i am actually 'making money'.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:14 pm GMT by khaosanroad
The standard answer seems to be 20x the max buy-in.
If you want to take a shot at .1/.25 NL go for it. A 200 BR is easily replaced.
Posted Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:46 pm GMT by Ensano
depending on how many hours you play a week... if you're just the average player and maybe play 5 hrs a week i wouldn't worry too much about having that key 20 buyins (like said before 200$ is easily replaceable)
if you're mid range 10-20 hrs/week then 20 would be a good idea to have.. .
if you're putting in over 3k hands a week then i would suggest even a bit more to help handle the swings...
i, for example, have a 2200$ BR and i play 50$NL... 2 tabling getting maybe 10 or so hours a week... i find it really helps take the pressure off of the beats...
(my BR is a bit deep because i've just moved up to this lvl and i'm still waiting on the results before moving up...
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:03 am GMT by MrDarling
| MasterMike wrote: | | Ok, ive started with 1.75 (transfered to me) |
This line suggests to me that $200 is not easily replaceable. If that is the case, I would make $200 the requirement to go down a level. Meaning, once you hit $250 you can stab $25 but drop right down if you get below $200.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:14 am GMT by MasterMike
| MrDarling wrote: | | MasterMike wrote: | | Ok, ive started with 1.75 (transfered to me) |
This line suggests to me that $200 is not easily replaceable. If that is the case, I would make $200 the requirement to go down a level. Meaning, once you hit $250 you can stab $25 but drop right down if you get below $200. |
Yes, i should have said that. Putting in 200 bucks for "fun" aint my thing. I would probably have to be kissing someone's ass to try to get that money on there as i dont do the online deposit thing. Long story
As for 250, that was my idea too as it gives me a little wiggle room. Also, 200 has been an obstacle to get over for a while, i was at 217 last week after being at 193ish for the longest time, then dipped 45 bucks to 170 at .05/.1, now im at like 195. I dont want to dip another 50+ on a higher level now just because i got the min amount of money to play that level.
Since i started with scratch, im trying to make it my goal to limit any deposit just to see how far i could actually take this.
Thanks for the help
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:24 am GMT by AHBrownell
Greenstein talks about this a bit - the better player you are the smaller the bank roll necessary to be successful - that being said, if you aren't a pro, you need a pretty deep bankroll, I'd recommend that you have about 10x buyin to play at a given level. I tend to play at the .5/1 level so I like to have about 1000-2000 in my BR to feel comfortable. I also multitable, so I tend to think you need less of a roll to play that many tables effectively - because the variance is reduced. I have around 1500 on average and thats for 8 tabling .5/1 so I have about 800 in play at a time, which is actually more than half my BR, but I don't think this is bad. I also was willing to move back down to .5/1 after losing a thousand at the 1/2 level - something all players must do if they are going to continue a general upward progression.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:06 am GMT by MrDarling
wow, playing with half your BR on the line you have to make sure you do not tilt at any given minute.
I don't think variance is reduced one you multi table. Variance is variance 
BTW, I have a feeling AH you are talking about a per site BR. In your case if you lose that BR it is probably easy enough for you to reload.
If your BR is everything you can afford to have for poker you have to be much more careful with it.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:39 am GMT by gumbie
You need as much as u need to make u feel comfortable.
I wouldn't recommend playing a level you don't have 10 buyins for.
If your bankroll is short, seek out the weak tight tables.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:03 am GMT by Ensano
| MasterMike wrote: |
...then dipped 45 bucks to 170 at .05/.1, |
you defenitely shouldn't be playing .50/1$ NL with 200$....
unless you play on reloading if you bust or topping off your account i suggest putting off you're dream of hitting the 100$NL tables...
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:20 am GMT by AHBrownell
| MrDarling wrote: | wow, playing with half your BR on the line you have to make sure you do not tilt at any given minute.
I don't think variance is reduced one you multi table. Variance is variance
|
Well I've won enough over my poker career that I agree that I would be willing to add money to my account if I did burn it down. That being said, I honestly haven't had to ever do that. What I was trying to say, is that you need less money to win if you are a good player. I often will start sessions playing short stacked on my 8-12 tables. I'll buy in for the min, and then look for premium spots to double up or reload. Or I'll buy in at half the maximum. Using this technique has allowed me to learn how to play lots of different stack sizes effectively. The idea being that when I lose half my stack in a various game, I can still play my A-game.
I also don't like to reload at a table (unless I lost due to my opponents' bad play - not mine) so if I blind down or lose a few hands, I have to be able to adjust AND I never let it affect me in terms of steaming, but more in terms of my starting hand selection and the types of moves that I can use. This also helps limit my losses. I've noticed some players will lose their stack, reload, lose their stack, reload. Honestly if you are losing you should figure out ways to get your money off that table, one way I identify those spots is to let myself get pretty low, and if I get to a certain point I'll either leave the table or at least adjust my play to compensate.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:55 am GMT by Gunslinger
| Ensano wrote: | | MasterMike wrote: |
...then dipped 45 bucks to 170 at .05/.1, |
you defenitely shouldn't be playing .50/1$ NL with 200$.... |
This is 5 cents/10cents...
| MrDarling wrote: | | I don't think variance is reduced one you multi table. Variance is variance |
Variance, by definition, is something that evens out the more hands you play. By multi-tabling, you are playing many more hands, making up for anything that might happen in the short term. If you get stacked on one table, your winnings from the others will offset this. All this is assuming you are comfortable with the number of tables you're playing, you are playing your A-game at all of them, and the amount of money you have on any one table is no more than the recommended amount if you were single tabling that limit. It is definitely lower variance to multi-table a lower limit than to single-table a higher limit. Note I'm not saying that this is the most profitable way for any specific person to play, just that I believe that this does reduce variance.
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:46 pm GMT by Ensano
sorry my bad...
Posted Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:55 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| AHBrownell wrote: | | Greenstein talks about this a bit - the better player you are the smaller the bank roll necessary to be successful... |
To clairify for everyone he means the greater your edge over your opponents the smaller your roll need be. At small stakes 10 buy ins might be enough. But in bigger games where even good players only have a small edge 100 buy ins is more reasonable.
| Gunslinger wrote: | | Variance, by definition, is something that evens out the more hands you play. |
Surprisingly it doesn't. In fact, it is directly proportional to the # of hands played. It's the standard deviation (the square root of variance) that "evens out" after a lot of hands. It's true that adding more tables will decrease your hourly coefficient of variation (your hourly SD/your hourly win rate). But that still doesn't alter your bankroll requirements.
A rule of thumb would be:
BR > variance/win rate
*Variance is measured in bb^2 and win rate is measured in bb so the dimensions of this do work out.
Since both variance and win rate are directly proportional to the # of hands played the rule of thumb for playing n tables would be:
BR >n*variance/n*win rate
the n cancels out
BR > variance/win rate
So adding more tables does not alter your bankroll requirement if your win rate stays the same. If your win rate drops when you add more tables adding more tables increases the bankroll requirements.
Everyone says variance when they mean standard deviation.
Posted Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:57 pm GMT by MasterMike
update: i got a little frustrated as i went a little under 200, but i decided to play .1/.25
At first a little rocky, but ive pushed up my BR from 195 to 245 in only a few hours of play, which for me is great. I thought the guys would be much better, some are, most arent, although its nice to get lucky sometimes.
|
|
