chris built zero into 28k. he now has 12k within a very short time. he claims bankroll management is the key. never buy in for more than 5% or your roll and leave the table when the amount in front of you represents more than 10% of your entire bankroll. i think that is self explanitory and very clear.

with that being said, what are the odds of dropping more than 50% of your bankroll following those rules?

i dont see how unlucky a player can get. he must be dropping a chunk of that roll to tournaments as well.

The probability p->100% for n->+inf. DUCY?

i see why your an idiot. thats all.

It's impossible to calculate, there are so many possible different factors involved. It's like asking, "what are the odds that if I stay inside and play poker all day and rarely leave my house, that I'll catch the flu from one of the few people I do meet, and get really sick and die from it on an odd numbered Thursday between 1:42 PM and 2:13 PM?

All you have to know is that it's extremely unlikely.

I'll play with the numbers a bit though... suppose you have $400. According to the 5% buyin rule, how far would you have to fall to get down to $200?

The first loss would be $20 (380 left), then $19 (361), $18.05 (342.95), $17.15 (325.8), $16.29 (309.51), $15.48 (294.03), $14.70 (279.33), $13.97 (265.36), $13.27 (252.09), $12.60 (239.49), $11.97 (227.52), $11.38 (216.14), $10.81 (205.33), $10.27 (195.06).

So it looks like it would take a 13 1/2 buyin downswing. Hmm, I guess that's not nearly as impossible as I thought it was. Still pretty unlikely for a good player though, especially at the lower levels.

As has been discussed on past threads, his climb from $0 to $10k was very slow. His planning was poor. He often played in games for which he was not close to properly bankrolled, e.g., playing multitable tournaments with less than 10 buy-ins.

His bankroll managment rules are inconsistent. Buying in for 5% of your bankroll is much more aggressive in a SNG than a full buy-in in a NL cash game. Buying in for 5% of your bankroll is much more aggressive when you are buying in short than when you are buying in for the maximum. Buying in for 5% at all levels makes sense only if your win rate is the same at all levels, which is absurd.

Using a fixed percentage of your bankroll on the table is terrible. Nevertheless, we'll get a thread per week on it for years because Chris Ferguson recommended it.

One meaningful interpretation is to ask for the probability of ever dropping to $50 when you start with $100. See this paper. For the Kelly criterion, it would be 1/2. For 1/2-Kelly, 1/8. For an inconsistent system which is sometimes one, and sometimes the other, and sometimes greatly overbetting his bankroll, it is unclear.

When you use lousy bankroll heuristics, as he is doing, you expect to see some pretty large swings. It can't help that his win rate is probably depressed due to jumping form level to level, and changing stack depth rapidly.

This was an overhyped and poorly executed exercise. Many players have also gone from under $100 to over $10k in a few months while using sound bankroll management techniques.

See this challenge $5->$1k in 1 week and this schedule for going from $10 to $10k in 114,000 hands.

If you want to see a simple, accurate guideline for bankroll management, see this post in the beginners forum.

OP,

What ever answers phzon leads you to(and probably anyone else), you probably need to double the risk factor.

For example, if they tell you $500, then you really need $1,000. Their methods are inaccurate because their statistical model doesn't fit poker. It would be good if you were playing blackjack from which is was derived. But not poker, never poker.

btw very nice post pzhon

I have to say, if he dropped his limits like he explains in his post, I'm surprised he dropped so fast. It's very possible, but for a player of his skill unlikely if he keeps dropping limits as he says

Unless even Jesus goes on tilt