Mason,

Why do you assume that everything I have ever written about bankroll management can be summed up by taking one out of context sentence from my entire brief answer to the question from the CardPlayer article:

"I hate losing. What can I do about that?"

To sum it up, my answer in the article was:
Embrace variance. Don't get upset when you lose. If you are bad at poker, expect to experience significant losses. Practice sound bankroll management if you have a positive win rate. Review your play and study the game.

I suggest you go back and practice with your bankroll formula as you must be using it incorrectly. If you win at 1.5bb/100, which is the case for many struggling $1/$2 players who would ask the question "I hate losing. What can I do about that?" you will see that you need a 9,986 big blind bankroll to have a risk of ruin of less than 5%. Of course, if they wanted to gamble or did not care about going broke, they could play with a smaller bankroll, but I try to not set my students up to fail. Perhaps if you had a better diet and were well rested you would have understood that the question was obviously not proposed by someone winning at 10bb/100, or then again, given you have taken many things I have written completely out of context, maybe not.

For the few readers here, is a handy poker variance calculator (google those three words, 2+2 doesn't like it when I post links) online that you can use to run various simulations to see what standard variance looks like.

Johnathan:

You're just making a fool out of yourself, and as you've been told a number of times, the insults need to stop.

While the Poker Variance Calculator, which can be found here:

http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

is a very nice program, but you still need to enter a standard deviation for 100 hands. Now the program does give you some sugested guidelines depending on the game you're playing, and if you were to read the the "Bankroll Management" chapter in my book Real Poker Psychology, I also give a way to estimate the standard deviation and use a larger number for full ring NLH than the program recommends.

However, the best way to do it is to compute your estimated standard deviation directly from your results by using the maximum likelihood estimator and how to do this is explained in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. And all this was published 30 years ago (and the standard deviation converges mush faster than your win rate so a good estimation of this number should be available from most peoples' data).

Now, whether you use my formula which probably has a risk of ruin of no more than one percent, or your 5 percent risk of ruin, when you have a tiny win rate per 100 hands compared to your standard deviation per 100 hands, you're going to need a very large bankroll. But your bankroll requirements requirements in small stakes games where relatively high win rates are achieved by some of the best players can be fairly low.

Also, when you write "Embrace variance. ...", no good player should do this, and in my opinion it's terrible advice. Again, if you were to read Real Poker Psychology you would see some ways that exert players use to reduce their variance.

And by the way, are you aware that variance discipates over time relative to your results. One of my complaints about the poker psychologists is that they need variance to behave just the opposite of the way it actually behaves. And as David would say, DUCY?

MM

You don't have to actively teach for someone to learn from you. To put it another way, people are learning from your books. Perhaps that is what was meant.

No offense meant, but you tell him he is making a fool of himself and the insults need to stop, but you don't even spell his name right. Again.

But on to more important things, if someone is just starting out and has no numbers to plug in, how do they figure out what size bankroll they need?

Speaking of bankroll calculators, I found one (Chris Fox's) that seems to support Jonathan's position.

Mason,

Why do you think that someone who asks the question "I hate losing. What can I do about that?" should be assumed to have a high win rate?

Do you think this is a reading comprehension issue? You can't even be bothered to spell my name right and your most recent book was littered with typos.

Do you think it is the inability to relate to the common poker player? I promise your social group is drastically different than the common $1/$2 player.

Perhaps you are just trying to cause a ruckus in order to stay relevant. I understand your disappointment that your recent book only has 2.5 stars on Amazon and is not even in their top 100 poker books.

So the hand full readers of this forum are aware, just because a large win rate is possible at the smallest live games does not mean the average novice has that win rate. I would venture to say that the vast majority of small stakes players over-estimate their win rate.

Given you claim to be excellent at math, how do you not definitively know the risk of ruin associated with your bankroll formula? That strikes me as odd.

The term "embrace variance" in my opinion means that you should play the style that leads to the highest possible win rate, within reason (which is not what many amateurs do). I could have certainly been much more clear in my one paragraph reply in the CardPlayer article. I was unaware at the time that it would be dissected and taken out of context. Obviously all pros try to minimize variance as it minimizes their risk of ruin. This is not a ground-breaking concept.

Hopefully this has all been cleared up for the readers of the forum so they can move on to more productive activities.

Hi AI:

While I'm the owner of 2+2Publishing and we publish a number of no-limit hold 'em books, I'm not the author or co-author on any of them. So I don't consider myself to be a teacher of this subject. However, I do work closely with the authors of all our books so in that sense you may be correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi AI:

If someone is a novice type player they probably don't have a positive winrate as yet. Thus the idea of a bankroll doesn't yet make sense. So I don't have an answer to your question. In fact, if you think about it, bankroll and bankroll management only make sense for a serious player who is clearly a winner in the games he plays.

As for the bankroll calculator by Fox, I'm not familiar with it. But remember, these things are based on statistical formulas, and if the formulas are wrong, the BR calculator would probably be long gone.

Also, if you look at my Gambling Theory book you would see that it shows that small winners need large bankrolls to assure survival while large winners (relative to the game they're playing) need much smaller bankrolls, and all of this was first published 30 years ago.

Best wishes,
Mason

There you go with the insults. For someone who's now taking part in writing books about psychology, it seems like you're the one who needs some assistance in controling your emotions.

If so few people read this forum, why do you even bother to come on here to defend yourself. And novice players probably don't have positive win rates. However, if someone becomes serious about their poker game and does the proper work to get better, their win rates in small stakes games can quickly go up -- it doesn't take 10,000 hours, one of the silly things that you associated yourself with. So there's the answer to your question.

My bankroll formula is based on certain statistical assumptions. The answer to your question is explained in my Gambling Theory book which was first published 30 years ago. And by the way, I do have two degrees in math, both from Virginia Tech.

You need to read the section in my Gambling Theory book on "Non-Self-Weighting Strategies." You would see this is exactly the idea which is addressed there. By the way, are you aware that "embracing variance" as you call it, from a statistical point of view reduces the sample size (and that's why the variance goes up). Also, in this book there's discussion, among many other things, as to why an expert player, starting with the same size bankroll, is more likely to go broke than a good player, and why, in general, those strategies which increase your expectation usually come with a price of a higher standard deviation (or short term luck factor). And again, all of this was released to the gambling population 30 years ago.

Also, the idea that expert players do things to lower their standard deviation, as well as some examples, is addressed in my psychology book. Why do you think people multi-table? and over time, what happens to the standard deviation relative to your expectation?

As someone who had a career as a professional statiistician for almost 12 years, I didn't think any of the stuff I did was that ground breaking. What surprised me, in the early and mid 1980s, was that no statistician had yet to come through poker/gambling and that there were very few players who understood any of this stuff.

MM

Someone who is just starting out isn't necessarily not a serious player. And if they are serious even just starting out, why wouldn't they have to worry about bankroll and bankroll management?

I was also wondering if the amount of time someone plays will have any impact on their bankroll needs. To put in other words, if someone is planning to play seven days a week, will they need more bankroll than someone planning to play only three days a week?

My nominee for obscure would be Money Poker by Mr. X. However, my view might be influenced by it having been published in 1983 and wasn't into poker books until many years later.

Based on the reviews on Amazon, an underrated book might be Play Poker Like A Pigeon.

I want to follow up on this a little more. The program that you recommend and the statistic you give is actually an underestimate of a 5 percent risk of ruin. Here's a quote from my Gambling Theory book which explains this issue:

I also address this in the "Bankroll Management" chapter of my psychology book.

MM

Hi AI:

I remember this book and read it many years ago. It's one of the worst poker books ever written, and I have no idea who Mr. X was.

Best wishes,
Mason

I don't have a good answer for you. All serious players shoul understand bankroll requirements, but until you can establish a consistent win rate, it's not very meaningful.

No. How often or how much you play are not part of the statistics. However, if you do things like play longer when the game is good and quit when the game is bad, this should impact your win rate and standard deviation.

Best wishes,
Mason

Was the Walter Gibson mentioned on the cover the same one who wrote The Shadow?

Ignore my question as the back cover answered it. The book, which I have never read, was buried amongst the other poker books I brought home from storage today. I was motivated enough to dig it out.

I got it from some place for free due to ordering other books.

If you read this book, you'll see that Mr. X makes four-of-kind or a full house on hand after hand.

Best wishes,
Mason

This is quite fun given your associate made a veiled threat of legal action against Mason Malmuth for saying almost exactly the same thing last year.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=367

I wonder if Mr. X didn't exist and Gibson simply wrote a poker novel.

I went back and read more than just the one post you linked to. Implying someone isn't good at math isn't "almost exactly the same..." as implying someone doesn't have a degree they say they have.

It is pretty close considering Mr Malmuth says he has masters degree in Mathematics.

If you have read the whole thread you'll know Cardner was called out for linking to random articles that in no way supported her position - rather than responding, she made the post threatening legal action and decamped from the thread and any other real discussion on 2 plus 2. That some institutions have awarded her doctorates is pretty irrelevant to me.

If Cardner's degrees are irrelevant to you, then Malmuth's degrees must be equally irrelevant.

But you know what is really irrelevant? Cardner's postings when it comes to Little's postings. The one wouldn't be relevant to the other even if Cardner and Little were married.

Unless, you are one of those who still think a man is responsible for a wife's behavior.

Hi AI:

One of the things that happened here is that Cardner's Ph.D. is from some place called Argosy University, which I had never heard of. On the other hand, virtually everyone has heard of Virginia Tech. But that's probably because Va Tech has a big time football team.

Best wishes,
Mason

Malmuth hasn't said anything inconsistent with his having those qualifications and while there are many people on this board who have greater knowledge of Mathematics than I do, I was lucky enough to study at Bachelor's level under people such as prof Michael Goldstein (he of the Bayesian analysis which Dr Cardner thinks is inapplicable to poker), so I at least would have some basis to detect charlatanry if there was any.

On the other hand, Dr Cardner seems unable engage with issues and explain how the sources she cites (or rather "name checks") are relevant to the points she's making (myelination and the 3 ways of making decisions come to mind). Anyone who considers themselves to be a member of the culture of logic, reason and debate which was started by the Greeks and preserved in the ancient universities before it spread out into wider society in the modern age has the necessary tools to call BS - and that she was in the past able to present a dissertation which satisfied some academic institution can't really cancel that out, so it's irrelevant.

True, I only said it was quite fun.

Hi Lektor:

This caught my curiosity since I'm not familiar with this claim. Can you point me to where it comes from.

Best wishes,
Mason

A university's familiarity says nothing about its quality. Your unfamiliarity with a specific institution speaks more to your own ignorance of the higher ed landscape than about the institution itself. Clucking about Virginia Techs popularity has exactly the same relevance as your deriving bankroll requirement 30 years ago. It was 30 years ago, correct? If 30 years is not the correct time span, please let us know.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=17

and

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=354

Basically the efficacy of Bayes theorem is dependent on a rational player with appropriate assumptions.

My question would be, if a player is not rational and has inappropriate assumptions, would this not lead to his myelination process encoding incorrect habits of play?

So you're familiar with Yale or Harvard simply because of their size?

Their size is irrelevant. You're confusing correlation and causation. Or maybe just poorly trolling.