Joined: Oct '11
Location: Sweden
Age: 32 (M)
Posts: 1410
As the title says, is it a good idea to base your brm on how much you play? For example, say that you play 50 sng every day, you might want to have 50 BI at any given level. But say that you only play 10 sng every day and maybe not even that, is it then realistic to have say 20 BI on any given level?
You don't play as many games meaning that variance shouldn't hit you as hard moneywise so theoretically you could afford playing with a lower amount of BI. The 50/Day guy might lose 20 BI on a downswing and the 20/Day may lose 8 BI (based on the % of the downswing).
I'm sure you get what I mean. So what do you guys think? Is it a good idea to base brm on how much you play?
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
variance isn't affected by how many games you play per day, your logic is fundamentally flawed.
For example, let's talk specifically about variance with a negative trend, let us say you're about to go on a 30BI downswing, it really doesn't matter whether that is spread out over a single day or a week or a month, you'll still lose 30BIs and go broke if your BRM only allowed for 30BIs.
That said, your win-rate will be affected by the amount of tables you play simultaneously, so if you play only one table at a time you can expect to have a higher ROI% than if you play ten tables at a time and the higher your ROI% is, the less BIs you'll require for a given level.
If you are prone to tilt, you may want to take into account how much you play.
That is, if you tend to lose money by playing bad, and deviating from your strategy, when things don't go your way, rather than by variance.
If your downswings are just variance alone, it has no influence, like Jess said...
Personally I think I don't tilt much, but when I examine some losing sessions, it is clear that it wasn't variance as much as bad play on my part... So I do tilt, I just don't know about it at the time...
That is why shorter sessions improve my win rate (I take less of a hit when I'm playing bad); currenly, my lifetime (including startup cost and downswings) winrate is at about +9BB/100 in cash games.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by marqis:
That is why shorter sessions improve my win rate (I take less of a hit when I'm playing bad); currenly, my lifetime (including startup cost and downswings) winrate is at about +9BB/100 in cash games.
Yes, very good point.
Increasing your winrate will minimise your downswings, for sure - so anything that makes you play better, or win more, will lower the chances of a harsh downswing.
But none of this affects variance, variance is just a statistical factor - it can't be cheated.
Variance doesnt mind how much games your playing per day... it's variance and t'll stay the same wathever the number of games your playing... I just think that the more games you play each day, the more your own performance can be affect with some tilt period or simple bad play ( tilt again). to stay out of that risk zone ou should always try to have aout 100 BI whaever the BI is before entering a tourney no consideration on how much tourney your gonna play on that day
Joined: Oct '11
Location: Sweden
Age: 32 (M)
Posts: 1410
Well, for me at least, when I hit a downswing due to variance, that only lasts for like a week at the most. I've tried to not play for a few days when I hit a downswing like that, when I then start again I've pretty much skipped over the last part of the downswing and by that minimized my losses.
I play with at least 50 BI's just to be able to handle a big downswing but I know people who play less then me that have less BI's and they justify it by saying that if they hit a downswing of the same % as when I hit a downswing, they'll just lose the same amount of % of the bankroll as I do. Basically they say that they lose as much as I do, they just have less money to work with but since they play less it all equals out.
I thought myself that it was a flawed theory, I just wanted to put it out there to see what you guys think about it as well.
So just to be clear, I don't think it's a good idea but I still thought it might be good to hear from others as well to make sure that I'm not the one who's in the wrong I'll let this thread be open for a week or so and I'd really like all your comments, then I'm gonna show it to my friends so they can see that actually they're wrong
Joined: May '12
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 38 (M)
Posts: 2064
All points made on here have been spot on. How many games you play should not affect your bankroll management. Nor should your quality of play, your opponents quality of play, or anything else.
For the best strategy I've ever come across - google search "jennifear bankroll management".
Decided to post this because it's hard to find nowadays.
Good luck!
Edit: I have made a thread on the forums called "Jennifear's Bankroll Management" where you can check it out because bankrollmob's blocks direct links to other websites that are poker related.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
as the idea of bankroll management is based on many assumptions, most of the guidelines given by experienced people are good enough. the optimum bankroll management will vary from person to person, and after playing for some months/years u should be able to finetune whatever recommendations u followed blindly when u were a beginner. most common mistake ppl do is in defining their available bankroll. (thanks to jess for pointing that in the past) probably the most important thing in bankroll management is shifting limits based on your profit/loss. depending on your playing style and bankroll management -a 20 buyin can hav similar conf level of not going broke as a 40 buyin, obv 20 buyin will require very aggressive management and freq shifting of limits.
Posted by yout85: Nor should your quality of play, your opponents quality of play, or anything else.
Joined: Sep '12
Location: Romania
Age: 33 (M)
Posts: 1052
I think if you want to increase your br for high stakes you need to win 1000 SNG at micro stakes and then you can go to step 2, if you want to go at step 3 you need to win 2000 SNG at step 2 and then you know if you can play higher or go back to micro stakes, for me variance = when a player win all then soft think he will withdraw, then he got A LOT OF BAD BEAT, soft don't want someone to withdraw, they always want RAKE as much as they can get it...
I'll let this thread be open for a week or so and I'd really like all your comments, then I'm gonna show it to my friends so they can see that actually they're wrong 
