[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances - Page 337 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash

[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

View Poll Results: What is your Win Rate in terms of BB per Housr

Less than 0 (losing)

5 6.41%

0-2.5

0 0%

2.5-5

6 7.69%

5-7.5

8 10.26%

7.5-10

15 19.23%

10+

26 33.33%

Not enough sample size/I don't know

18 23.08%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 337 of 1069

First

137 237 287 317 327 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 347 357 387 437 537 837

Last

Page 337 of 1069

First

137 237 287 317 327 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 347 357 387 437 537 837

Last

12-25-2014 , 12:13 AM

#8401

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by The@rrival

The standard calculation for a professional poker bankroll is standard deviation squared divided by hourly winrate. If you're buying 100bb stacks at 2/5 and plan to do the same at the deep 5/10, just double your 2/5 standard deviation and increase the winrate by a few varied reasonable amounts until you reach a perceived equilibrium. If you're planning on buying in deep, quadruple your standard deviation.

Play with this math for 5 minutes and you should have some good ideas of what you need to sit long-term and how many buys you can tank before dropping down again. If you're simply shot taking to find out how comfortable you are, all I can advise is that you keep 75% of the original 2/5 bankroll calculation in reserve and have at it with whatever you've amassed above that amount.

Good luck. I'm chasing you.

FYI, this is wrong. Not sure what you're picking this up from, but in all my time as a pro I've never heard a bankroll described this way.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 12:22 AM

#8402

bwslim69

I'm a Diva, Bruh

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 24,927

A lot of butt hurt itt.

Merry Xmas to all tho

Quote

12-25-2014 , 12:23 AM

#8403

oh-nahhh

Donking it

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,040

why is this wrong? Do you have mathematical evidence to back up this claim? lol

Quote

12-25-2014 , 12:29 AM

#8404

The@rrival

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by oh-nahhh

Haha, do you play at MDL? That standard deviation formula is too much for me lol, I'm just gunna take a shot when I win 15k more and hopefully not have to go back down

I do. We've also played bughouse. glgl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

FYI, this is wrong. Not sure what you're picking this up from, but in all my time as a pro I've never heard a bankroll described this way.

All due respect: The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall, chapter on Bankroll Management and Shot Selection, Kelly Criterion applied: Bankroll = (Variance/Winrate). It's entirely possible I've misapplied it. Help a wayward soul?

Quote

12-25-2014 , 12:58 AM

#8405

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by oh-nahhh

why is this wrong? Do you have mathematical evidence to back up this claim? lol

1) It's wrong because it's not 'the standard'. I've seen a lot of bankroll standards out there, but nothing like that... even when we had access to datasets in the 100s of thousands of hands.

2) I highly doubt that your formula, even if correct, is valid given the sample sizes one works with in live poker.

3) The citation is on you to prove it, not the other way around.

4) I don't give a ****, do whatever the hell you want.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:01 AM

#8406

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by The@rrival

I do. We've also played bughouse. glgl

All due respect: The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall, chapter on Bankroll Management and Shot Selection, Kelly Criterion applied: Bankroll = (Variance/Winrate). It's entirely possible I've misapplied it. Help a wayward soul?

I don't have access to the text, nor the sample size required for the formula to mean dick, but again, I've never seen someone use this formula as a standard rule of thumb.... and I highly, highly doubt that it's meaningful given the huge variance inherent in live poker.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:05 AM

#8407

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

The formula is also pretty silly to use for shot taking. For one, it's pretty stupid to play at a single level. People get wrapped up in bull**** like 'I'm a 5/10' player. You don't have to double your variance/winrate in order to double your stakes. You can take a shot at a great game, and if it doesn't work out, just move down.... and **** move back up if another spot comes up.

You don't go broke if you aren't afraid to move down.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:07 AM

#8408

RelentlessDoubt

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 689

What sample size is meaningful

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:12 AM

#8409

The@rrival

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Not sure if troll or....

KC has long been a standard in the gambling world. The imperfect information yield from even the most massive personal hand history datasets is a poor argument because it follows, logically, that there is no definitive answer -- anyone could be on a life-heater; so why not follow a mathematical river rather than pissing in the ocean with the experiential generalizations that most other bankroll management techniques provide?

If you don't care, then why did you even bother? Posturing?

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:16 AM

#8410

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,530

Quote:

Originally Posted by The@rrival

Risk of ruin should enter into a bankroll requirement calculation at some point. In poker, bankroll formulas put you in the ballpark where if you were playing 21 you can be a lot more precise. As mentioned, if you are willing to move down in stakes then your bankroll can be smaller.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:20 AM

#8411

The@rrival

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Oh that's not the formula he states for shot-taking. He simply says:

Quote:

These properties of the Kelly criterion make it exceptionally useful for evaluating shot-taking at larger games. If your available bankroll is larger than your Kelly required bankroll, you can take a rational shot at the game. However, if your available bankroll is below the Kelly bankroll, you would be at great risk to play in the game.

Doubling the variance was an inference on my part. It's impossible to find your winrate in the bigger game, but it should logically follow that variance at least doubles as the stakes directly double. Of course the next level's standard deviation could be much more if you're at a more significant skill disadvantage and/or have a lower winrate than you did at the previous level.

I agree with your assertion that you look for a good spot and take it when shot-taking. The question was what roll does he need to sustain 5/10 play, though.

Last edited by The@rrival; 12-25-2014 at 01:33 AM. Reason: hyphenation nation

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:26 AM

#8412

The@rrival

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

Absolutely! The KC bankroll is just a minimum.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 01:35 AM

#8413

11t

Bo Pelini's #1 Fan

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 31,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Poker wisdom itt

Quote

12-25-2014 , 02:06 AM

#8414

D0UGHBOY

Self Rising

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3,633

You can never lose what you don't put in the middle.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 02:12 AM

#8415

wj94

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 7,951

Quote:

Originally Posted by D0UGHBOY

You can never lose what you don't put in the middle.

And you can't win by folding

Quote

12-25-2014 , 02:15 AM

#8416

D0UGHBOY

Self Rising

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3,633

A dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 02:33 PM

#8417

oh-nahhh

Donking it

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by The@rrival

I do. We've also played bughouse. glgl

We've bugged? You know who I am? Was it otb or on fics?

Quote

12-25-2014 , 03:04 PM

#8418

The@rrival

enthusiast

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by oh-nahhh

We've bugged? You know who I am? Was it otb or on fics?

OTB, maybe seven years ago. I had to endure a punishing series of insults because I sucked, lol. I still suck at bug.

Quote

12-25-2014 , 03:11 PM

#8419

oh-nahhh

Donking it

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,040

hahahha my bad dude lol were you my partner? Come say wassup next time you see me at MDL, I'm grinding a ton there these days

Last edited by oh-nahhh; 12-25-2014 at 03:19 PM.

Quote

12-28-2014 , 08:48 PM

#8420

DonkvFish

adept

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 938

Quote:

Originally Posted by D0UGHBOY

A dollar saved is a dollar earned.

Never count your money when your sitting at the table

Quote

12-28-2014 , 11:29 PM

#8421

lukeamac

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 272

Update on my roll and other deets... Games I'm playing are $2/$3 & $5/$5 NL, 100BB Cap, 10% commission capped at $20.

Cheers Mac

Quote

12-29-2014 , 04:51 AM

#8422

DonkvFish

adept

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 938

Nice.. Can you post a pic of stats separating 2/3 and 5/5

Quote

12-29-2014 , 12:34 PM

#8423

gobbledygeek

Poet Laureate of LLSNL

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 36,149

Post your 2014 giraffes!

In 2014, the correction finally came for me.

2010: 8.81 bb/hr
2011: 8.63 bb/hr
2012: 10.39 bb/hr
2013: 11.82 bb/hr

2014....... 6.87 bb/hr. Yikes. Well, at least I had a winning year. Course, if I took out just 79 hours worth of this graph I'd be sitting at ~10 bb/hr for the year, but that's obviously not how things work. As well, I believe table selection (or lack of it) is starting to play a role in our dying room (although my post downswing stats don't seem to reflect this).