DC, I remind you of the posting rules for this thread. As is you common MO, you are getting very close to the line.

Do you have an hourly sample from $1/$2 or $1/$3 NL? That should give you a range.

Any examples on what you mean by dialed in? What kind of stuff was he paying more attention to?

On a previous phone I had about 500 hours of 2-3 only. I was winning around $18/hour.


On this phone I have 550 total hours, 225 at 2-5 and majority of the remaining 325 hours are at 2-3. Win rate at 2-5 is $32/hr and at 2-3 is $15/hr.

I'm playing in the same room, and same player pool for what its worth. 2-3 is 100 bb capped, 2-5 is 200bb capped.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

this happened in around 2014 during the wsop. The player was middle age eastern block. He was in town for the summer and regging it up at the V. I had played with him several times and I was becoming more and more intrigued with his play. I struck up a conversation with him and we started building a friendship. The dude was simply a deepstack boss. He just did everything right. He applied pressure in the right spots. He understood how each player thought about the game and had a counterstrat ready. His ranging of opponents was fantastic. We were sitting next to eachother during one hand. He was involved in a massive pot and got jammed on. He mumbled normally this is a snap call but... he finally called it off with the A high and was of course correct. I logged prolly 50 hours with him that series.

From mid-2012 thru mid-2014, I put in 1013 hours at 12.79 bb/hr.

From mid-2014 to mid-2017, I put in 1307 hours at 3.97 bb/hr.

In 2018 + 2019, I put in 1109 hours at 7.25 bb/hr.

All pretty much in the same room and in the same 1/3 NL game.

1K hours means **** all, imo.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

1k hours should give you a good idea of whether you are a winning or losing player.

Agreed, the higher +/- from zero you are then the more confident you can be that you're a winner/loser in your game. But much past that, meh. I mean, I think OP is asking whether he should expect to win 3 vs 5 vs 7 vs 10 vs 12 bb/hr, whereas the truth is that if he plays long enough that he could very easily have significant stretches where he could do any of those.

GimoG

Sorry if this has been asked but is there a link somewhere to a calculator for BR management in cash games that goes by Kelly Criterion? (I used the search and didn't fine anything here).

I did find one for sit and goes but would like to see one for cash specifically. Cheers.

Kelly Criterion has to do with bet sizing vs percentage of roll. Each stack at a cash table is not a bet, whereas each buy in for a tournament or SNGs is, in that you'll either get a return on it or lose it. Trying to use it for cash game BRM makes no sense unless you are basically playing a shove or fold strategy.

Yeah figured bur was hoping for an adaptation for cash games. Oh well

Its still alot of knowledge out there regarding BRM for live cashgame-except a special formula. If you want to calculate chances of going broke with a certain banktoll, there is posters here who knows their shyt. It depends what you are looking for.

Sent fra min SM-G981B via Tapatalk

I think what you want is a risk of ruin calculator, which is a factor of bankroll, variance and winrate. You can try this one, for example, which includes a minimum bankroll required for a less than 5% risk of ruin as one of its outputs.

If you are thinking of win rate and variance, your buy-in to a game is very like a bet. You put money on the table, play a while, and then take money off the table. The amount you take off the table after a specific time is going to be related to the amount you put on the table by some probabilty distribution, and that distribution is going to have a mean and a variance (and higher-order statistical moments, but let's leave those alone). We have a mean and a variance, and so we can compute our Kelly criterion.

Bear in mind that the way we change our bet size in our attempt to maximize log(rate of bankroll growth) with poker cash games is by changing the stakes we play, e.g. from 1-3 to 2-5 to 5-10 to 10-25 et cetera. (Do bear in mind that our win rates are going to be different at these different levels, and that impacts the size of bankroll Kelly prescribes.)

I haven't actually done this calculation for plausible NLHE win rates, but back in the day, when I was a limit hold'em pro, the conventional wisdom was that for limit hold'em, a winning player needed a bankroll of 300 big bets (not big blinds) to comfortably play at a particular stake. When you plug the typical winning player's win rate and variance into a Kelly calculation, it turns out that playing a 300-big-bet bankroll was the equivalent of about 1/3 of Kelly, and that the way to maximize log(bankroll growth) would be to play with a 100-bet bankroll . . . if you were disciplined about moving down in downswings as well as moving up in upswings.

The same people who recommended 300 bets for LHE recommended twenty buy-ins for NLHE. It is too much of a stretch to really say so, but if the relationship to Kelly was in fact the same for LHE and NLHE players, then a roll of only 7 buy-ins is all one needs to maximize log(bankroll growth), if, that is, you are as disciplined about moving down as you are aggressive in moving up.

http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/poke...uirements.html

Not exactly what was asked for, but useful. I'd be more concerned with RoR anyway, since you can't just infinitely move down in stakes when necessary. There are both absolute and practical lower bounds. If you're playing 1|2 live there's no lower stake. If you're playing 2|5 live moving to 1|2 might not be enough income to pay the bills depending on where/how you live.

Using only 7 BI as a bankroll is totally insane. Be prepared to change stake with every session. Which is not practical for live poker imo. Personally I have swing of minus 5BI on a monthly basis. Especially if you are counting a BI as 100bb and playing deeper.

I think that 20BI is very aggressive, and 40 BI is min if you are not actively replenishing. If I were to play exclusively I would want 100BI to avoid mental strain from losing sessions.

Thankfully I plan to have a job that pays my life bill's, and poker is a fun and profitable hobby.

Yeah 7 buyins is pretty ridiculous unless the games just always play small. I lost $1500 in an hour of 1/2 to a single player while buying in for no more than $200 and never putting my money in bad (ok maybe one time). Last night I played in a 2/5 game where it was at least $100 to go if you wanted to see a flop. Good luck with 7 buyins!

100 buyins is also ridiculous though.

If you are depleting your roll by taking money out for expenses you either shouldn't be using Kelly at all, or you should be accounting for your life rake before you figure your win rate and variance to compute your optimum Kelly bet size.

Poker winrate - life rake makes complete sense.

GL managing your stress and not life tilting if you plan to play for a living off a roll that gets threatened by a very normal (at least a couple times a year) downswing. 100 BI's is absolutely fine, and imo not even the most conservative if you consider playing for a living.

Remember that if you use the RoR calculations you must only include your effective winrate in the calculations. Winrate = winrate at tables - monthly budget.

So for example, if I am playing $2-5 with a winrate of $40/hr, and put in 120 hrs per month, and have monthly expenses of $2500. My monthly profit is ,...

$40 x 120 - $2500 = $2300 with a winrate of $2300/120hrs = ~ $19/hr. NOT $40/hr for bankroll calculation.

Assuming my std dev is around $600-700/hr (I personally calulate mine to be slightly higher, but play very deepstacked - never less than 200bb - which will increase the variance). I would need a bankroll of $40k - $50k to bring my risk of ruin down to 1-2 %. Granted this is conservative, but I'd rather be safe than broke.

An additional consideration that I have found through hard learned experience is that a computer has no issue playing the same as their bankroll diminishes, but I struggle. If I start playing with only a $20k roll at $2-5 and go on a $10k downswing, my roll starts looking VERY low and I'm going to struggle with managing my emotions and confidence. Notice also that moving down isn't really an option with a monthly nut of $2500. Moving down is the same as quiting as I won't make enough money to replenish my roll and need to get a job anyway.

I'm fine if people want to go broke everytime they have a downswing + life expense hit that coincides. But to suggest 100BI's is too much of a roll for a full time player is LOL ridiculous and I can't imagine it coming from someone who has actually walked that road.

FWIW: I've been playing for my monthly nut for the last six months as I have been going to school and unemployed from my regular job due to COVID in March. After exhausting my UI benefits I started increasing my hours a little and poker has been my only source of income since Aug. '20.

I started with a $10k roll, and living expenses set aside for 9 months (time until I finished school and anticipate regular employment again). I have run really well and have managed to increase my roll significantly as well. I started at $1-2 NL ($300 BI) and started taking shots at $2-5 early and successfully and was able to move to $2-5 exclusively fairly quickly transitioning once I had $20k in the roll (while maintaining my 9 months expenses saved). Here are my stats during that time...

$1-2NL ($300BI): 199 hrs +$7497 WR: $37.7/hr = 18.8 bb/hr
$2-5NL ($1000BI): 269hrs +$35,938 WR: $133/hr = 26.6 bb/hr

I'm super happy about running like the flaming sun at $2/5, and also believe that the deeper stacked game has been beneficial.

There is no way I would have/could have taken the shots I have without having the life roll + bankroll thing squared away though. I'm sure that after this post I will take a hard nosedive as I'm way overdue for some variance to catch up to me.

I'm breaking even/slightly winning over 300 hours or so. I think I've run into quads with top boat three times (in PLO), which is a lot over such a small live sample. In hold 'em, V has had a straight when I have a set very frequently as of late. Also, I may be playing too exploitably at 5/T, folding a lot of my bluffcatchers in capped spots versus capable Vs. But all things considered, pretty happy I am only breaking even and not hemorrhaging. And still winning monthly overall. People just seem to have it a lot against me lately, which is bound to happen from time to time. Some friends say I need to start calling river overbets more at 5/T. I wonder....

Sounds like you've definitely had some run bad. I don't play PLO for two reasons. Frist, I'm bad at it. Second, the variance compared to winrate doesn't seem worth it to me right now.

I'm one of the only players in my pool that uses overbets frequently and I don't see players adjusting well to them at all. I will say this, I don't think that being in the situation of calling overbets is a very comfortable one, I'd much rather be the one making the overbets. Probably worth putting in some more time with the solver to identify ranges to call with if you are consistently facing those uncomfortable situations.

the best person people in this thread can be listening to is ME, because ive played poker for 30 years with no income outside of gambling. a very small amount of the wins were on games other than poker, mostly all from poker. no monthly check or job of any kind, and only 1 small stimulus check of $1200 one time.

and sometimes ive had up to 600 plus buyins. (when short stacking $50 in 1-3 NL with a roll of 30k plus) but not often. my buyins are all over the place depending on how long ive been playing that day, if im up or down, or plan to quit soon. but i would definitely recommend 50-500 buyins. much less stressful.

of course, considering living expenses being about 3000 a month since i dont have the mental capacity to learn how to drive due to being born with autism and it costs about 1000 a month or more for Uber, i wouldnt have any roll if i took out 9-10 months expenses like the previous poster with 100 buyins did. so maybe 30k isnt that much for $1-3 NL, usually 1-3 NL with 2 hands of omaha PL and 1 double board bomb pot omaha.

i do know what im doing, ive never once been without a way to buyin and been out of action all that time. put in 365 days a year, about 2500 hours a year.

That is some super impressive lifetime achievements. Congrats!

I think it's worth mentioning that there are a number of ways to think about bankrolls. Certainly we agree that having more is far superior to having too little. As long as one is disciplined I dont see the need for a separate roll per se. But what is critical is how much money one is willing to play with while maintaining the ability to keep on playing. This is where different individuals having very different needs regarding the life roll or separating their bankroll.

When I was single I could life on much less and could more easily scrape together a few buy ins to get in the game. Now that I have a family, it is far more important to avoid going broke, and it is not an option to impact my families lifestyle over poker.

To be clear I'm not keeping a 100BI roll for myself. But I most certainly would if I intended on playing full time.