Quote:
Originally Posted by cAmmAndo
You are going to get different opinions. And this thread might get moved to the bankroll thread. A common answer to this is 20 buy ins.
For 20 hrs per week with + $300/week replenishment rate, you could pretty much start with a couple buy-ins say $700. If you run good you might be properly rolled sooner. If you run bad/play bad you will only play 2 buy ins per week and it will force you to stay out of the card room and you could use the extra time reviewing hands and studying. I personally think trying to grind it up over the course of a couple months is a better plan than waiting 3 months.
Just My$.02
You’re talking about the common answer of 20 buy-ins and combine that awful idea with money management when advising opponent to play only two buy-ins per week when losing. What common answer are you talking about?
Most people get confused or they may start believe that advise/approach will do the trick, but it doesn’t. If opponent has got to be forced out of the card room because his short bankroll it become gruesome to even contemplate advising him to waste 20 buy-ins in the first place because probably he’s a losing player in the first place when he's trying to post a question about how to handle his $300 in a 1/2 NL game. It's obvious to me that our friend have no idea how variance and standard deviation works in poker. For your information: the standard deviation of a winning pro player in live Las Vegas cash NL games is about 10-12 x hourly expectation. In a 1/2 NL a winning player can expect to make about 10bb/hour or $20/hour with a standard deviation of $240/hour or 120bb/hour. If your stack doesn't fluctuate in chunks of $250/hour up or down you are not playing with a full deck, so to speak.
In regard to buy-ins and money I would say this:
On this subject what we’ve got here are two concepts. One is called "money management" and one is “bankroll management”. Bankroll management is very important. Even if you are a great player, you must have enough of a bankroll to sustain the inevitable losing streaks. And I have never been opposed to keeping a big enough bankroll of about 50 buy-ins at the minimum to be able to play and sustain losses. The concept that I am always trying to explain to people is the “other” definition of money management. Money management in most people’s minds means quitting simply because of how you are doing that day, or continuing to play simply because of how you are doing that day. In other words, you are in a game and you have lost x number of bets so you quit, only to come back tomorrow. Well, that is a silly concept because it is all one game. If you are a serious poker player, you are playing by the week, by the month, not by the day. And if you for instance are in a very good poker game, you don’t quit simply because of how you are doing. You quit because the game has gotten worse, you quit because you are tired. These are all proper reasons but not because I not getting cards or I’m losing or I’m getting bad cards that day, because I’ve lost a certain amount, or because I’ve won a certain amount. This is simply incorrect. This is not my opinion, this is simply incorrect. If you will play in a game where you have the advantage, the more you play, the more you will eventually win. If you play in a game where you have the disadvantage, the more you play the more you will eventually lose. There’s no way of getting around that. If there was such a thing as getting around having a disadvantage simply by money management, you could go to the crap table and win by money management. In other words by quitting at the right time or not quitting at the right time but you cannot do that. Money management is a completely spurious idea as far as when you quit or when you don’t quit. The only thing that matters when you are gambling is to gamble when the odds are in your favor, when you are the best player, when you figure to win. And when you are in that situation play as long as you can. When you are not in that situation quit at the first opportunity. That’s really all there is to say. Bankroll management as far as having enough money – that’s different. But money management – no.
Che,
Last edited by always_tilting; 03-14-2011 at 09:58 PM.
