They generally assume 100BB.

If you're buying in for more you should have a larger roll.

Play whatever game you is best. Buying in for $200 in a juicy $400 max game is *much* better than sitting with $200 in a ****ty $200 max game.

But they're also assuming that you have no way to replenish your role if you go bust. If you can tap some "life money" to keep playing you can get away with a smaller "bankroll".

I am able to take some life money so if I wanted to play the $300 or $400 max buyins what would be a good BR?

While the rest of what Angrist said is accurate, it is NOT TRUE that your bankroll requirements go up if you choose to buy in for more than 100 big blinds.

Bankroll management is not about buying. BRM is about how many big blinds that you have in your roll.

Eh. It's entirely different playing deep vs playing shallow. If you're buying in twice as deep any hand that goes wrong will hurt twice as much. That's also why most people have "X% of your BR in play" limits.

I'd need to see some really convincing math to believe that the buy in size has zero bearing on your BR requirements.

You should probably have a slightly bigger bankroll if you are buying in deep but I don't think it should be substantially different.

How big a game plays is largely based on bet sizing which is mainly based on blind level. Obviously if someone buys in for $1000 at 2/5 they are going to have far less variance than someone that buys in for $1000 in 5/10. In fact, someone that buys in for $500 at 5/10 is going to experience much higher variance than someone that buys in for $1000 at 2/5.

My bankroll got decimated due to an illness followed by some serious runbad. I made ~$18/hour over ~40K hands in 2014 and had a healthy br. Since recovering from a bad illness, I'm on the downswing from hell in 2015. Long story short, I've got $300 left.

I'm trying to figure out the best strategy to build up again. What poker strategy would you use if you had $300 left with no immediate way to re-seed your roll? What adjustments would you make (if any)?

Here's my plan:

*Bum hunt - find the worst possible player with the most money
*Nut Peddle - Flop the nuts and shovel money in.
*Avoid +EV, high variance lines (things like not 3-betting AK from SB)
*Break the remaining BR into BIs of $120/$120/$80 ($120 allows for set mining)
*Hope to run like God

I'd appreciate any thoughts or suggestions.

Get a job

game selection. Find a great game and play tight. Even better, find or host some small stakes home games and invite every fish you can find.

If by worst player you mean a loose passive that calls down with bottom pair and only shows aggression when he has a strong hand then I agree. However, my take is that playing against terrible players is often higher variance. If bankroll were an issue I'd rather play in a calm limpy game with players that play their hands face up. Definitely want to nut peddle when stacks go in.

Regardless, you will need to employ a hit and run strategy. Good luck!

+1

300 with no way to replenish is crazy high risk of ruin. Playing short buy-in guarantees you can never even call a raise with correct odds to set mine.

Sent from my LG-D801 using 2+2 Forums

Hope to run like god.

Tbh with 300 you are pretty much bus to unless you can find small 25-50nl home games to grind in.

Get a ****ing job

get a job

if your strat is to just nut peddle vs a fish then dont break up the buy in, just hope to double a lot.

That's the primary decision. I wasn't sure if breaking up the buy-in was a good idea or a bad idea.

And make sure to rake the hell out of them.

You burned through over $20k?

I would suggest not playing with your $300 "roll."

What's your plan if you lose the $300 (via cooler/suckout/etc)?

Risk of ruin is much much higher if you don't break the roll up in 3 pieces like you did. (it's super high regardless)

by breaking up the buy in he just forces himself into more marginal spots and if he does run hot and hit the nuts vs a fish he gets the least value. he also ends up paying more rake relative to his potential profit. his only chance is to buy in full.

edit: under most rake structures at least

Not if he is nut peddling at passive limpy tables.

Of course he's taking less risk and thus will reap less rewards. His best chance for success will be by not pushing edges and not playing optimal poker.


That's just a silly statement.


The main problem with buying in full is that he only needs to be coolered once and he is broke.

Would you guys consider rakeback ($1/hr) as part of your win rate, or should you keep that separate? Thanks.

The answer to your question is:

"Who are your records for?"

... usually your records are for you, so do whatever the **** you want.

(Most people don't count your rewards for live play FWIW)

I mean, it's a pretty trivial distinction either way. It's all going back into the bankroll.

^ I don't count it towards my winrate. But at the end of the month/year/whatever, I add it to my winnings. But I convert almost all of it to a free slot play and "turn it into cash, not food and watches.

How do y'all log a high hand bonus?

It's tempting to just plug it in at the end of my session and give my win rate a nice boost.