Hi. Sorry if bankroll management doesn't belong in poker theory, but since this relates to the concept of risk of ruin I assumed it does. Feel free to move the thread otherwise.

So, as I understand it, you're supposed to have minimum number of buy-ins in your bankroll for the stakes you play in order to get a maximum risk of ruin desired. But I was wondering, what would happen if instead of moving up when you gather that amount of BIs for the next stakes, you did so gradually in function of the number of tables you play?

For instance, say you always play 4 tables, and you use the traditionally recommended 20 BIs. You start playing at 10NL with $200. My idea is that instead of starting to play 25NL once your bankroll is at $500, since you play 4 tables, you start with 1 25NL table once you're at 1/4 of the way, that is, $275. When you're at 1/2 of the way ($350), you play 2 25NL tables and 2 10NL ones, etc. Assuming you're strict in stepping down when your bankroll swings down, is this more or equally risky than only playing one stakes every 20 BIs?

Because if the risk is the same, this seems like a far better option to me. First, assuming you play equally well at both stakes, you would progress far more quickly. I know this is an unrealistic assumption, but this is made up for by the second advantage, which is that it allows you to get experience for the next level more gradually, in a much smoother way than just moving up abruptly. Am I correct here, or is there some downside I'm not seeing?

PS: I do realize that, when your bankroll is at $350, playing 2 25NL tables and 2 10NL is more risky than playing 4 10NL ones, that much is obvious. What I'm asking is if it is more risky than playing 4 25NL ones at $500, and if the added risk during the transition is worth the benefits.

what if ur 1/20th of the way tho? 1 table of NL25? theres the problem.

but sure I know of MTTers who divide their br after total session buyin. for example risking $1k of a $30k br, and that could contain a $500bi and loads of smaller ones. gets swingy tho. not my cup of tea.

use kelly criterion with some estimations

Perhaps I was unclear. My idea is that you would move up 1 table every 1/n-th of the way, with n being the number of tables you play. 1/20th would do nothing, unless you play 20+ tables.

Agreed that it would be swingy, though.

first its best to play the higher limit only when the table s are good. later it matters less but one needs to worry about swings more, and as so one finds oneself playing the lower limit when ever running bad. the one step, big roll step is a rather radical idea, and in reality there is no such thing. its all one big run and the roll hardly matters when taking shots on higher games when there is a good game or even when just feeling like it or having won a couple of stacks at lower limit.

actually it matters alot even on a yearly sample if u play like 300-400k hands only. thats what the kelly criterion is all about. and ev++ had some calculator for moving up in stakes.

although lifeEV matters alot and the variables differs alot from person to person, one could argue that moving up slowly (like 50bi br) could be more optimal for some. it just depends how u handle ur emotions.

and you should also take into account how life changing the money potentially lost would be to you. being forced to move down from NL100 to NL50 could destroy ur ability to support urself, but lets say u have a $300k roll, losing half would not change ur life (like the Galfond shot taking).

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for exactly.

As you grow your role from $200 to $500, obviously it is more risky to integrate some 25NL tables than sticking to exclusively 10NL tables.

Is the reward worth it? That depends on a lot of things, one of the major ones being how easily you can replenish your $200 bankroll should you lose it - only you can answer this.

I would say it the other way : if you lose half your roll and have to move down to NL50, that's 5k max (depends on your BRM but 5k is a standard number).
That sucks if you're a pro, but that's money you can make in a few months with an "usual" job if you go broke.

On the other hand losing half of a 300k roll is a lot. (and even for degens it's soul crushing knowing you could buy a house, saving some money to live from it if you want to go back to studies for example, etc)
I know Swedes are ballers but in France the avg income is about 2000€/month (2,7k$) (and the median is 1600€).
So losing 150k is losing about 5 or 6 years of an average job, that's a lot.

It's fine "gambling with a 4 or 5 figures (i mean maybe 20k- , depends on one's risk acceptabilty) but if you get to a 6 figures roll (and even 50k) your brm needs to get a bit more solid.
You can't think "if i degen it all, i will regrind with FPP's"

It sucks to lose this amount.


But yeah agree that if you're a low stakes pro, losing your roll and not being able to support yourself is a problem, otherwise it's only a few months of work IRL that you lost (not years or even a life).

I only play in live cash games. 1/2,2/5 nlhe;1/2 plo&plo8; and occasionally 8/16 limit HOE. Bankroll at all these games is not an issue because I have built it to a point where I'm comfortable. What I've consistently found though is there is sometimes no point in moving up beyond lower limits there are so many Really BAD players just waiting to hand you their $$'s!!! I haven't played online since Black Friday, but recall seeing the same effect there. My advice is to be patient and build Ur roll& get fat then it makes Ur decisions easy. Bankroll Management IS an important part of poker theory though especially if Ur playing just 2 survive an put food on the table. Blue Skies.

look, its not about the amount. its all relative. you even have some contradictions in ur post. just a flawed mindset imo.

if ur not even willing to risk $20k out of a 300 br means u will barely be able to play 5/10 with that 300bi roll. come on now dudeski