They also underestimate their hooker bankroll requirements.

Have I just been leveled?


If not live players are more ridiculous than I thought

If we're talking about live NL the game is mostly always gonna be 6-9 handed and almost never HU so the variance of playing in those conditions on a day in day out basis won't be that high compared to online 6m games, or many of the other games that are spread daily in a casino.

IDK anything about FLO8 and its variance, however LHE has more variance than NL and smaller edges.

PLO may very well have bigger edges, you also will be getting less hands per hour and more variance.

In terms of bb's FLHE's variance is dramatically smaller than NL's. For me HUNL variance is approaching 4 times that of HULHE. That said for a number of reasons like the game playing much smaller, lower wr's and just the way the game plays particularly HU the downswings at LHE are much more brutal and tilt inducing.

we are talking about live poker, hu is almost nonexistent in live poker.

if you play 10/20nl live you probably have to be playing 80/160ish LHE to have a similar hourly. the day to day swings at 80/160 will be bigger overall than at 10/20nl.

Might as well wake up from the 2+2 dead and chime in here. I've become an lol live pro since black Friday, the last 18 months here in LA playing maybe 75% 10/20NL and the rest 20/40NL and higher whenever I can get the action.

Yes you play like 3.7 hands per hour. Yes that means even 30 hours a week for 1.5 years is the somewhat short term in poker variance. But my winning sessions % (77%) and hourly rate (ya not give that one) have remained relatively consistent and I am the by far the biggest LAG reg in the games. This is likely a function of a) the games being lol soft compared to my previous poker life in general and b) the regs being lol predictable/exploitable.

And when I get shorthanded or HU action the variance is almost always even lower based on the people willing to play HU or shorthanded w/ me.

With that said, I still think Bart is right and the overwhelming majority of live pros play on way too short of rolls and have way too many life leaks (wasteful spending, sports betting, flipping, ect) for their bankrolls.

Cliffs: Most live pros aren't very good, thus their winrates are small/negative + very few hands/hour = need bigger rolls.

many live pros have super bad game selection skills and will choose bad hours to play, against lineups they cannot win against.

game selection is one of the best skills you can have in california

Many live pros don't keep accurate records and as such, have no idea what their winrates actually are

lol..

I've been playing live NL as my sole source of income for almost seven years now, and I've had numerous downswings of 1000 bb, and a few that were in the 1400-1500 bb range. I guess this is pretty standard, I don't really know. Nor do i understand what Bart means when he says "if you play live, triple your bankroll by three!"

What I do know is this; large downswings are gonna happen. Long break-even stretches are gonna happen. But if I keep putting in my hours, at the end of the year, I'm gonna have a win rate of 10 bb per hour or more. At least that's what my history tells me. So I don't sweat it anymore, I just play...the numbers will take care of themselves. That being said, playing for a living, I find it much easier to play on a bank roll of 100 buyins.

Kind of weird advice for Bart, since for the individual listener he has no idea how nitty/aggressive they are with their bankroll. Like I'm sitting here thinking, I'm a massive bankroll nit, so he can't possibly be right that I need to multiply my roll requirements by 3x, can he? Normally he posts advice on Twitter that strikes me as applicable to just about anyone.

It is interesting to know that live pros on average are overplaying their bankroll by 3x. Not a surprise at all. But not reassuring in any sense when you see donks playing big, since, for the guys who run hot, it ended up being smart for them to have been so aggressive! And the guys who run cold you never see again so they have no influence on the extent of your envy.

I figure he means with the radically lesser number of hands you'll play live compared to online, the average downswings will last longer, like months instead of days. Meanwhile you gotta pay rent and eat.

what bart wanted to say was that you need a three times higher bankroll playing nlhe compared to blackjack at similar stakes (achievable hourly?) i guess, doesn't make too much sense otherwise.

Since BJ is an unbeatable rigged casino game, an unlimited bankroll wouldn't be enough.

hes telling me 300x buy in isnt enough?

Guys-

This was a piece that was written for a non gaming publication, kind of the "Time Out" of Baltimore. We recorded the interview via Skype and then the answers were edited and transcribed. I don't even specifically remember saying the 3x comment, but I don't doubt that I did. I am pretty sure there were a lot of other things that I said on the bankroll topic but this bit was chosen for the article. The point of my answer was to convey for those not familiar with professional poker that often times new players to the profession vastly underestimate their bankroll when the game is their sole source of income. It was by no means anything scientific nor was it meant to be taken that way.

Bart

I think you miss the point of what he want to get across. I doubt he want everyone to triple their BR, he just want you to think things trough. If you play with 300xBI as the guy above and have a family to support with everything that comes with that a break even period will cut deep into your BR. Bart has no clue as to how much cash you have, he is simply stating a fact that comes from someone who plays for a living as opposed to having a place to stay at and playing.

Just make a budget for what you spend a month, multiply this by six and you probably get an idea of what you need to have in reserve to have a RoR that is negligible. If you say you have savings to take from you just don't understand the point Bart try to get across.

In after Bart... for the record, I understood completely.

Good piece imo

+1

Thanks Bart, I apologize if I muddied the waters. We'll have the full audio available soon.



In certain situations the comps can make up for the -EV of the game. Especially if you are someone like who is frequently traveling and using casino perks.

Seems much more easier to have a career, bink a final table, abuse the spotlight for a quick buck which is what poker has become right?

Theres no more dead money cause now the fish are taking their money and running instead of blowing it all in HS games like Jamie Gold.

Poker industry needs to slow down and think of what the next move is cause something needs to happen soon... And I dont mean more donkaments. The poker industry is in serious need of some good mass media publicity. I thought 1Drop would have had a decent effect on the industry but it didnt even scratch the surface

Kralex, I must ask. Do you think the poker industry and or poker players are entitled to "dead money"? I ask because a lot of players, both live and online, seem to think they are. Or at the very least they say this is what "the industry needs" for people to be profitable. As a business person I find this to be the most ridiculous thought process I have ever heard. It is just further proof of people feeling entitled to something that they are not entitled to. Being successful at anything takes working hard in whatever the conditions may be. I keep hearing players say we need softer fields and lower rake so that "I" can be more profitable or profitable at all, but no one is entitled to any of those.

Im a communications person so there lies our difference in thinking.

No, the poker industry isnt entitled to dead money, but it needs it and nobody is doing anything to bring it back.

You're right that being succesful takes hard work in any condition but thats the problem, the people who should be working hard arent at all. The pros.

You know it sounds so cliche but these internet wizkids destroyed live poker. Nobody wants to play and lose against a human robot, I want to play and lose with D.Negs, Ivey, Hansen, Farha etc. These guys knew what the go is, keep the fish happy, let them enjoy losing their money!

Before you have the chance to ask what the media is doing, what can they do? They set up all the cameras, put these kids in the spotlight and then in the interview they comment **** like "hand was standard, got it in, lost, oh well". How about a bit of emotion? The world wasnt captivated just by the fact that Moneymaker was an online qualifier who turned a sattelite into millions, he had personality, he really did seem like the average Joe, the guy from down the street.

Wana know why Joe Hachem is somehow still relevant? Cause there isn't a player from Australia who has the charisma he does. The guy knows what the public needs to see from poker.

W/E ill probz get a bit done over for this post but im ready for it, deep down we all know its true. Internet poker ruined live poker.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with everything you just said. Which I think, supports a lot of what I said. A lot of players, generally the younger gen, aren't thinking long term. They are focused on immediate gratification. I don't totally fault them for this because the majority of them don't have the business experience or life experience to see the long term picture. But this is the nature of gambling/poker. All you need is the money to buy in, nothing else. This allows people from all walks of life to be "poker players", as they should be able to, but in the long run it has had a negative affect on the industry.

It was a typical gold rush... same pattern and same outcome. Happens all the time.