Yes but the key thing with that post is the figures only apply if you're willing to move down when your bankroll falls below a certain point.

I used to play $3.50 regspeed 45 mans when I had more than 100 dollars - which looks like less than 30 buyins, but actually it was 75 buyins for the $1 45 regspeed man (to be used at BR $25-$100), 60 buyins for the $0.25 45 man (to be used at $10-$25) and 100 BI for the $0.10 game (to be used at $0-$10) so it was actually 235 BI.

So there is a big difference between the BR you need on the assumption you never move down and the Kelly Bankroll.

Yeah I agree Lektor. The kelly criterion is a very useful tool but is flawed in regards to poker. As player pools generally play better the higher the buy in. In other gambling if we wager ten times the amount our expected roi doesnt change. This simply isnt true in poker.
By deciding to move down stakes after a downswing not only do we lower our risk of ruin because we simply restore our number of buy ins we also increase our roi. So although we probably will have a lower profitability in regards $ won we actually increase our resilence to further downsinging and by having this approach we obviously lower our risk of busting our BR significantly.

Hey Kamitis,

I use a fairly conservative bankroll I believe. I always keep $3000 on stars and my regular games are the 3 rebuys mixed with turbo mtts.

In terms of downswings I've had 200 buyin in the 3rebuy and I have hit nearly 400 buyins in the 2.5s. I hit that 400 buyin downswing and still finished the year with a 38% roi(sharkscope) in the 2.5s over a 2k sample. So those large swings definitely are possible! Oh and I normally play between 12-15 tables

jesus. I really didnt think an individual would have a 400 BI downsing in a 2000 sample and have an achiieved roi of 38%. I mean yeah obviously i knew it was possible, so is winning the lottery.
Variance in MTTsng is friggin sick!
Do you think you maintained your A game or close to it through that swing oldskool because if you did!!! im not sure i could!!!! this ***** is mental.
38% seams pretty high for someone playing 12-15 tables so do you think you had positive variance over the sample as a whole in which case it makes the variance even sicker
Why did i leave STT's? oh yeah i remember i flat lined for 300 games. wtf was i thinkin lol

oldskool87,

with 3k roll, what limit turbo mtt's you feel comfortable playing?

I do remember freaking out after I was down over 250 buyins.. I was definitely playing with scared money at that point... felt pretty helpless. Definitely don't think I was playing anywhere near my "A" game towards the tail end of it.

Hard to say.. the year before so 2014 I ran around 25% in the 2.5s and was making about $1/game in the 3rebuys. Since then I began to study furiously.. so I definitely improved.. did I improve enough to go from 25% to 38% not sure maybe somewhere inbetween. My 3rebuy game went from about $1 per game to $2 per game in that time frame aswell.

I typically play most turbos up to $11 and sometimes I'll play the hot $16.50 aswell. And any 3x-turbo $1 and 2xturbos up to $3s

You can take that both ways though; in poker as you play higher you learn faster and increase your future earnings, whereas you don't learn more about sportsbetting by betting bigger amounts.

Great post. Thanks for sharing it.

Yes thats true but increasing our ability is difficult/ impossible to quantify. I spose its similair in deciding how many tables to play, playing more tables may increase our expected returns to a point but we should also leave some room so we are not stretched and can learn to improve as we play. So I take your point Our game selection and decisions we make shouldnt always be about maximising our returns/ minimising variance over the short time.

Personally i play 6 tables tiled or circa 20 with ninja tiling. I dont have sufficient sample to say what gives me the greater roi but im damn sure 6 tabling allows me to improve. While 20 tabling how can i improve? well i can use hrc to review but apart from that i dont know if my 3 bet or 4 bet shove got through in game or what they called me with. Also with so many hands going to hrc review hrc may show something as -EV but in fact it was a play based on exploitative play on the hud stats of villain, but without taking the time to review same hand in PT4 im not going to remember it as a conscious adjustment away from GTO and think i made a mistake.

I know choosing how many tables and chosing BI are not the same but i think some parralels can be drawn here, but IMO I think playing at a higher B.I. improves our game less then playing fewer tables.

Just my thinking and although i have small samples Im trying to study the massive variance my chosen format has. Im on a massive heater no doubt about it I just need to make sure running good doesnt cause leaks to develop in my game just like running bad can. These leaks could be "in game" or BRM/ game selection decisions.

Yes, I can see the analogy with tables played.

If it's about earning/withdrawing money rather than bankroll growth then something like the jennifear strategy makes most sense:

http://www.pocketfives.com/blogs/jen...rategy-585500/

The main point is not the wall of numbers, it's the general idea behind it and the cashout strategy it incorporates.

Ty I favourited that link, seams decent in regards to minimum requirements while cashing out some roll. its 6 years old though! An individual can probably expect lower ROI then 6 years ago, but useful for benchmarks never the less.
Is jennifear same as hot jenny aka Katie Dozier? off topic but just wandered.

No, I think I read that she had disappeared/stopped playing.

I think the general approach is good though, that you have "enough" buy-ins, because you have already built the BR, but the cashout strategy keeps you at a level where you are beating the games for a decent whack - it also moves you down if/before they get harder, which is an inevitable process of course.

A good test of a BRM is to ask: What would have happened to someone who started using this in 2009 and didn't get better at poker as fast as other people did?

if the answer is "He would now be playing three levels lower because he's no longer +EV at the same level he was in 2009" it's a good system, if the answer is "He would have gone busto because when you're -EV your downswing has unlimited length" then its a bad system.