If you have a good job/income, then mostly you don't have a bankroll issue (especially at the lowest stakes). In my just-shy-of-5000 hours (and holding) at 1/3 NL live, I've yet to officially book a $3K downswing (although admittedly I likely play a very low variance style). So instead it becomes an issue of whether you're expecting to win long term or lose long term, and if you're expecting to lose long term then simply a question of how much you're ok with losing.

Another thing you can consider is not buying in for the maximum. I do this myself in my 1/3 NL game, where I only BI for $200 (and keep it constantly topped off) instead of BIing for the maximum $400. My guess (?) is that this will keep the swings relatively mild overall (at least it has for me, although that might also have to do with my overall playing style). It also helps makes poker extremely simple where even a moran like me can win decently add it. And of course you can always change your mind later and BI for more if you think you have your feet well under you / the game is awesome / etc.

Ggoodluck!G

Thanks Gobbledygeek. BTW, I have read your lengthy thread. Love it. As for whether I'm expecting to win or lose long term, well, ..... I'm expecting to crush it of course. hahaha.

First, it is 400bbs if the straddle isn't on. The straddle is usually on, in which case it is 200bbs.

More importantly, there is a way that the size of the blinds has less to do with one's win rate than the size of the buy-ins. Many people (example: Bart Hanson) claim that in games with a buy-in cap, if you happen to double up, your win rate after the double is going to be higher than before, simply because when you do play for stacks, the stacks are going to be bigger.

So for bankroll and stop-loss purposes, I choose my guidelines based in how much I buy in for, not what the size of the blinds happen to be.

If you have disposable income that you are willing to spend on poker, and you are not trying to do this for a living or at least as a significant supplement to your income-excluding-poker, you do not actually need to have a bankroll as such.

A cash flow of disposable income can be the equivalent to a bankroll. Consider this thought-experiment (I am not actually recommending this as a bankroll management strategy!!!):

Suppose you have $200 per month disposable income that you are willing to put towards poker. Instead of saving it up until you have enough for a buy-in for the game you want to play, you do something different: you take a cash advance on a credit card of such size that the monthly interest payment on that cash advance equals $200. If the APR on your card is 18%, and your credit limit is sufficiently large, the amount you could borrow would be $13,333. That $13K can be seen as the bankroll-equivalent of your $200/month cash flow.

If you are a homeowner, you could get yourself a home equity line of credit and do the same thing, at a much more favorable interest rate -- the interest payments for which would be tax-deductable in the USA. Again, I am not actually recommending doing this. I am simply trying to demonstrate the equivalence of a cash flow and a bankroll.

In the end, though, bankrolls matter only to winners. If you cannot beat the game over time, no bankroll is big enough. If you can beat the game, and compute your win rate and variance, you can compute the size of a bankroll such that your risk of ruin is less than whatever number less than 1 you choose. And if you can replenish your poker fund next month, even "ruin" is a temporary setback.

I think stop-losses and stop-wins for that matter should be pretty much entirely about personal preference. The issue is really just about whether or not you're playing your A-game. If you find you struggle to play your A-game after losing a couple stacks, then that's your stop-loss. If you're still perfectly able to play your A-game when you hit your stop-loss, the stop-loss is essentially arbitrary and it's only function is to end your session earlier than you intended. Not that that's a bad thing, I've ended plenty of sessions early using a stop-loss or stop-win as an excuse because I wanted to go home and smoke weed with my wife.

Functionally far different from proper bankroll management where you can simulate things like RoR and downswings and can therefore approach it much more mathematically.

Giving a shot to play twice a week that kind of game (2.5-2.5-5 to 12), 3rd blind goes on the button as a mississipi straddle which is optional but id say 50% of the hands post it. Min buy in is 250 with no max afaik, but decided to buy in for 500 everytime and topping up if below 400. Thought of leaving behind 12.5k which I hope will be enough.

Said to myself to try it for 200 hours which should be 4 to 5k hands, expecting to play them in 5 to 6 months. I've never been a cash pro, tho I have played husngs & spins professionally for the last 11 years.

I have this theory that a winning player on this game (which is the most popular where I live) will make at least 20/hr and that crushers maybe can make up to 60/hr. As it's sort of a side hustle, I will continue only if I can make at least 30/hr, but not sure if that threshold should be increased, given that my hourly online has been 40-60/hr for the last couple years. (playing live gives me the additional value of going outside and socializing a bit, hence it's fine if I make less but at least 30/hr playing live cash)

Anyways, where to get some info about what kind of winrates can be expected ?, u think wr will be benefited from the fact of having often a mississipi straddle ?

I just started playing again and I tried buying in like this ($200 or $300 in 1/3 with extra to top up) and I really like it more than treating a BI as static. I think the commonality between what you and Alan do, and many others like Brad Owen, is topping up to the stack your comfortable with. What I liked about buying in this way is it allowed me to continuously play at a stack depth I was comfortable with so I could focus on my play, instead of worrying about my stack dwindling if I lost a pot. I watched a lot of folks last weekend nursing a short stack and ultimately not putting themselves in a good position to make their losses back because they weren't doing that... there's nothing worse than nursing a short stack forever to then not have enough money to maneuver when you get a hand.

Yup, really no excuses for ever playing at a stack you don't want to (whatever it may be). There are even options for when you get deeper than you are comfortable with at a table you are uncomfortable at, such as switching to a smaller stacked / more comfortable looking table (or, if worse comes to worse, simply cashing out).

GcluelessBInoobG

Now down 6.5 buyins post covid in 350 hours just had a 1.5 hrs session after waiting for a seat 2 hours. Flopped Set under set in a single raised pot 5 ways on K95r . 55<99. Might have been able to fold given older guys back raise on flop after I C/R. Feel like an idiot and that I'm never gonna play out of this seeing as it's been so hard to have a night with plentiful decent games

Did you play 55 how every other person in your game would play it? For example, did you limp it from up front / were one of the first callers of the raise? If so, no money really exchanged hands. And the more hands you play exactly like everyone else in your game would have played it (which may occur a lot in situations where there is no "plentiful decent games"), the more you are unlikely to win at all (due to rake).

Gjustsomethingtoconsider,imo,goodluck!G

Lol no I play 2/5 and called a raise In the bb 5 ways

That happens. 6.5 BI ain't that bad either. I got ~600hrs post openings in so far. First 300 were breaking even & then I started running like Forrest Gump. Poker's wild. If you have a proven track-record, I wouldn't stress over this. Doing a bit of study always helps build confidence.

I would like to add a bankroll reminder. Many people are talking about their bankroll and also about withdrawing from the roll at a certain level.

REMEMBER your RoR calculation assumes you will NOT be withdrawing from your roll. So, yes a 20BI - 2000bb roll is generally sufficient to ensure a 90% chance of success ONLY IF you do not withdraw from it.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that you will never have a 20 BI downswing as a winning player.

In order to use the RoR calculation you must subtract your withdrawal from your winnings before calculating your win rate.

I know this is old news for most, but just a friendly reminder. I'm a 'crusher' with over 15bb/hr win rate over almost 2k hrs and have had multiple 20BI downswings.

Multiple 20bi downswings over less than 2k hours and still maintaining a 15bb/hr winrate is actually kind of insane to me.

Could well be insane. But I play a lot of deepstack games where everyone is on 300bb+ and my variance is well over 100bb/hr. Totally possible that I've had streaks of horrible play, also possible that I had a couple really bad runs.

Personally I think that variance plays a larger role in short term results than most are willing to admit to themselves.

Fwiw. I had a 6k downswing at 1/2NL 500max. And a 11k downswing at 2/5NL 1kmax. All while still "crushing' the game from a long term winrate perspective.

Playing deep has a huge effect on that. In my 2/5 downswing I lost almost 5k on about 4 hands getting it in pre with QQ+, couple coolers and a couple suckouts by villain and that's a 10BI downswing in 2 days for me. Perhaps I'm unlucky, but I expect anyone who has played for a significant amount of time could tell a similar story.

+1 on having a 6k downswing at 1/2, though mine was an uncapped game with stacks ranging from $500-$1.5k. Beat that game for 14bb/hr across 1300 hours. That downswing and the time it took to claw out of it lasted about 120 hours.

That's a quick pullout of a downswing from my experience. Took me over 200hrs at 1/2 to fully recover from my 6k downswing there. And about 150hrs at 2/5. That's measured from initial peak to recovery to peak, so it includes the time on the downward side of the graph.

I expect that we see these kind of downswings from virtually all the winners and consistent players. Rec players who hit that kind of negative variance often just quite coming. Which makes sense when you think that a significant winner can have a sharp downswing, then a losing player can have an even harder downswing.

Downswings were when I worked on my game the most.

Ain't no one have time to study or work on the game when everything is going great.

What is a sustainable winrate for 9 handed 2/5 in a place with high rake of 5% and cap at 25$ + tip for the dealer? How can I calculate how much rake every player pays per hour on average?
A buddy of mine is convinced 10bb/h is impossible in the longrun and that something like 6-8bb/h is more realistic but im not sure. Tables are sometimes really good, sometimes really bad. So overall average tables I guess.

Number of hands dealt per hour * average rake per hand / number of players at the table.

You'll get a lot of arguments that tighter players pay less rake, but everyone wins about the same number of hands in the long run, so the average should be pretty close.

--------

5% at $25 or 5bb is quite a bit. With above formula, if we estimate 30 hands per hour and $200 average pot, you're looking at $300 rake or $33.33 per player.

So you would have to be winning around 16 to 17bb an hour to walk away with 10bb/hr in WR.

IMO, quality of game is probably equally important if not more important than the rake structure. But if average size of pot goes up, so would the total rake and individual share.

25 hands at $400 average pot = $500 rake or $55.5 per player. In this scenario, you would have to win about 20bb/hr to cash out 10bb/hr.

This is facepalmingly false. Just because you have a particular serious mental-game leak, that doesn't mean that everyone does.

That's a tough rake to beat. Let's say you are a 10bb/Jr winner under 'normal' rake of $7/hand. Now you could easily be paying $10 to $15 per hand.
I would take my current win rate and subtract 4bb per hour.

Turns a crusher into a mild winner and a mild winner to break even. I would avoid this game if possible.

Easy “dude,” it’s a joke.

I think people nearly always undervalue 5% rake. Or maybe you guys are dragging waaaay fewer small pots than I do.

Im hitting a plo downswing, down 8k in 80 hours, playing part time now too since the pandemic so 80 hours is like 1.5 months of play so really ***** suckss, hope i get out of it soon.

Pulled off something yesterday that I've only done 3 times in 630 1/3 NL sessions: broke exactly even.

Previous 2 exactly breakeven sessions were both over 6 hours 10 minutes. Bested that blahness yesterday with a 7 hour 20 minute session.

Anyone else have any similar statistical stoopidity?

Genquirewithinregardingmycoachingrates,ldoG