Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Bankroll question.... Bankroll question....

02-17-2015 , 10:46 PM
If I wanted to play 6 x 25c/50c full ring NLHE cash games on stars at once on a grind, what would you recommend my starting bankroll be?? I'm an MTT player... Thanks all.
02-18-2015 , 01:02 AM
It doesn't matter how many tables you play at once, other than if you don't have enough to buy in on that many tables.

Your bankroll requirements depend a lot on your own personal situation. If you have other forms of income and can just reload then you don't need nearly as many as you would if going busto would be crushing to you. Even if you have a bankroll on the smallish end, it's still fine as long as you move down levels when you should.
02-18-2015 , 01:15 AM
yeah it matters
02-18-2015 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaycareInferno
It doesn't matter how many tables you play at once, other than if you don't have enough to buy in on that many tables.

Your bankroll requirements depend a lot on your own personal situation. If you have other forms of income and can just reload then you don't need nearly as many as you would if going busto would be crushing to you. Even if you have a bankroll on the smallish end, it's still fine as long as you move down levels when you should.
It matters if dividing your attention between x amount of tables shifts your winrate from positive to negative as compared to x-1 tables.

But I agree with you if we could play the same game with a positive winrate at any number of given tables, then the extra tables do not force us to increase our bankroll size other than being able to actually buy into the tables.

@OP there are any number of poker bankroll calculators online. I think Kelly Criterion or Kelly betting are what most are losely based on.

Daycareinferno is also correct in that poker bankrolls are highly personalized based on your situation (i.e. do you need to with draw expenses, how comfortable are you moving down stakes if need be, your winrate, etc.).
02-18-2015 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_grindin
It matters if dividing your attention between x amount of tables shifts your winrate from positive to negative as compared to x-1 tables.

But I agree with you if we could play the same game with a positive winrate at any number of given tables, then the extra tables do not force us to increase our bankroll size other than being able to actually buy into the tables.

@OP there are any number of poker bankroll calculators online. I think Kelly Criterion or Kelly betting are what most are losely based on.

Daycareinferno is also correct in that poker bankrolls are highly personalized based on your situation (i.e. do you need to with draw expenses, how comfortable are you moving down stakes if need be, your winrate, etc.).
thansk for the feedback. I will check out these br caluclators. i always figured more tables would mean more br but I can run with what your saying for sure. Hope to see you on the felts soon
02-18-2015 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadpebble
thansk for the feedback. I will check out these br caluclators. i always figured more tables would mean more br but I can run with what your saying for sure. Hope to see you on the felts soon
The reason that isn't true (assuming you can play at a similar level dividing your attention) is that playing X number of tables simply means you see roughly the same number of hands in 1/x amount of time (assuming you're comparing to a single table). So you're simply experiencing an accelerated version of someone playing less tables.

Another way to look at it is if I gave you a graph from my database of 100,000 hands and I didn't include anything to indicate the time period I played those hands, you couldn't tell if I played 1 table for 12 months, 2 tables for 6, 3 tables for 4, etc.

^ just randomly choose those numbers btw no idea if that is representative of hands/table/month. Guessing it is not.
02-19-2015 , 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_grindin
The reason that isn't true (assuming you can play at a similar level dividing your attention) is that playing X number of tables simply means you see roughly the same number of hands in 1/x amount of time (assuming you're comparing to a single table). So you're simply experiencing an accelerated version of someone playing less tables.

Another way to look at it is if I gave you a graph from my database of 100,000 hands and I didn't include anything to indicate the time period I played those hands, you couldn't tell if I played 1 table for 12 months, 2 tables for 6, 3 tables for 4, etc.

^ just randomly choose those numbers btw no idea if that is representative of hands/table/month. Guessing it is not.
Cheers old hand, you explained it perfectly! good luck to you
02-19-2015 , 03:04 PM
30 to 60 BI

      
m