If a player is playing full time poker and they are using a poker variance calculator to guide them in moving up stakes, and how many buy ins to use for each stake, what should they use as their risk of ruin %?

Moving up and down stakes according to the bankroll.

Risk of Ruin Bankroll Required, 10 BB winrate was used with a 170 standard deviation for 6max plo.

50% 1,001.60
25% 2,003.20
10% 3,327.24
5% 4,328.83
2% 5,652.87
1% 6,654.47
0.5% 7,656.07
0.1% 9,981.71
0.01% 13,308.94


5% we need 43 buy ins and 1% 67 buy ins and 130 buy ins for 0.01%

0.01% seems too conservative but than again should it be the % used if you cant afford to go broke or is it too conservative?

Living expenses are separate so this question only applies to bankroll which is the players only income, and lets say it was a bot playing so tilting due to swings is no issue, basically bot plays.

poker variance calculator http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poke...uirements.html

Is 10bb/100 sustainable in plo?

The optimal No of buy ins also depends on many other factors, such as:
-Your living expenses
-How hard would it be for you to reload if you go broke
-How much would it affect your life
-How many levels you'll be moving up
-How much money you can make in a normal job
-How much you would make if you invested that money instead
-Will the stress of playing higher stakes make you play less/worse
...

For some people it would be perfectly OK to go for the 25% risk of ruin. They won't be moving up endlessly after all.

For someone else (let's say his life is over if he goes broke), the 0,01% might be the only one acceptable.

Lets use this ^ and living expenses are covered for 6 months.

So if we use 0.01% isn't this still wrong and too conservative if we move down stakes anytime we need to, especially if our aim is optimal method for building the bankroll?

And regarding this

No as we are using a bot to play for us, we really aren't , but lets just say we are to take out all the emotions of playing high stakes and the swings etc, just to see which is the correct % that should be used if player emotions are no issue and we move down anytime it is required according to our bankroll.

Yes I would say easily buy a top player.

You could even use a 2 BI bankroll management by that logic. Every time you lose a buy in, you move down. When you double up, you move up. It would probably be the highest EV strategy. Depends also on how many tables you're playing at once, but you get the point.

In reality, your win rate probably won't stay exactly 10bb/100 no matter the stakes you play. It will be changing, so the question becomes more complicated. Your win rate also usually improves a bit once you get some information on the pool tendencies (so, if you play longer at the same stakes).

Generally your bankroll management should be getting stricter and stricter as you're moving up, since your WR is lower, std dev is higher and the money is more valuable.

OK that makes sense. Silly me, your 2 BI example squashed my silly example lol

So should a poker player who cant afford to go broke basically be using the 0.01% it seems so? or is it a bit to conservative and maybe 1% to 5% is more appropriate.

I'm asking this since most of the online calculators use 5% as the lowest only option and the calculator I posted in the OP had a option to go lower than 5%.

I assumed most poker pros used 5% because of this and because from what I read "ALL" the articles are saying 5% is the % used by pro players when they talk about ROR, and why I questioned if this was true and if any pro players did actually use <1%?

If you're playing micros, I'd probably advise you to play with around 30 BI brm.

It should get stricter as you move up though. So around 50 BI for professional players seems fine (Around 2-5% risk of ruin).

How many hands per hour do pro PLO players usually play, if I may ask?

On average about 120 per table they play.

Standard risk of ruin calculation does not take living expenses and moving between stakes into account. You need to do the math to figure out an adjusted risk of ruin taking these things into account.

For example, if you never let your bankroll grow then the winrate you should be calculating your adjusted risk of ruin would actually be closer to the typical risk of ruin with zero winrate. You've created a ceiling for your bankroll.

For another example, when you move down in stakes your number of big blinds in your bankroll go up. So the potential path of your bankroll in dollar amount will have a softer landing when you hit a cooler.

If we exclude living expenses and only focus on building a bankroll, you shouldn't use risk of ruin. Since you can move stakes at any time, you can't go broke by moving down, unless you are at NL2 but whatever. You should use the jelly criterion instead. If you solve for the Kelly criterion you want to move up stakes when you have (std^2/wr) big blinds.
So for a 5bb/100 wr and 80 std you want to move up when you have 80*80/5= 1280 big blinds or about 13 BI