Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs"

09-28-2013 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by djle2
hes telling me 300x buy in isnt enough?
bart implies a laffer curve, and the numbers say you need to start playing 3x higher
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
09-28-2013 , 02:50 PM
sometimes there will be times to play above one's bankroll, but others are short buyers
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
09-29-2013 , 01:35 PM
I just want to reiterate that these comments were about playing professionally. The majority of players are not professional and therefore don't need to be as careful with a bankroll.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
09-29-2013 , 07:12 PM
Optimal bankroll can not be determined in a vacuum.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-03-2013 , 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeschmoe
It was a typical gold rush... same pattern and same outcome. Happens all the time.
And just like with gold rush, the real winners on aggregate were those who were selling supplies.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-03-2013 , 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The4thFilm
Since BJ is an unbeatable rigged casino game, an unlimited bankroll wouldn't be enough.
Actually if you have an unlimited bankroll then martingale works.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinny
Actually if you have an unlimited bankroll then martingale works.
True but in that case you could also just hop through your wormhole and start over.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:14 AM
Hi Everyone:

There's a lot to this statement and I thought as a former professional statistician my comments might be interesting to some of you. Also, I haven't read the thread, so some of what I'm about to say may have already been covered by others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouveau Pauvre
Great responses from Bart Hanson:

"I do have friends who solely make their living from poker. Fortunately it was never really like that for me except in the beginning. I think your goal should always be to diversify and make your money from other places.
It's always been my belief that if you're capable of making a good living at poker you're probably smart enough to better at something else. Of course, this assumes that you can deal reasonably well with people which not all poker players can.

Quote:
It’s not healthy, even somewhat dangerous, to make a living solely from poker as people tend to underestimate the variance [the statistical swings within normal conditions]
This is certainly the case with some people, and is more likely to be present, in my opinion, among those playing big games where most of the players play well (thus producing a low relative win rate). But it's also not true with everyone, and it's not difficult to estimate a good bankroll size.

Quote:
live poker is a short-term sample size so the variance, which would even out online, but you can go through these stretches live where the pressure will get to you.
It isn't even clear to me what he's saying here. My guess is Hansen seems to think the variance of live poker will dominate your results so much since you can't play enough hands compared to the Internet (and you have to play at higher stakes to have the same long term income) that it's not worth playing at all. I don't agree except with the possible exception of high stakes games where you are not game selective and are frequently in games where everyone plays well.

Quote:
People greatly underestimate the statistical risk of ruin because the standard deviation is so hard to estimate.
No it's not. The easiest way to do this that I know of is to use the maximum likelihood estimator as described in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics which was first published in 1987 and which many people on here occasionally reference.

Quote:
I’ve recently gotten into blackjack for comps (rewards that casinos offer to players) where it’s much easier to estimate your variance.
I assume he's estimating the variance for his blackjack play without the comps and the exact same technique mentioned above works in the exact same way.

Quote:
If you want to play poker solely – multiply your bankroll (liquid cash to play with) by 3!"
I never did this. Again using the techniques outlined in my book, I estimated my required bankroll at three standard deviations, increased it by approximately 10 percent to account for what I call the non-self weighting effect of not having all games you play in being identical, and never had a bankroll issue. (And for those who don't know, the standard deviation is the square root of the variance, and it has some nice properties which are useful for these type of calculations.)

However, many people discover that when using this method, the required bankroll is larger than what they intuitively think it should be. So perhaps his "multiply your bankroll (liquid cash to play with) by 3!" isn't as off as it first appears to be.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaycareInferno
Variance and winrate are two different things. NLH is not "by far the lowest variance game out there".
Required bankroll is based on the relationship between your win rate and standard deviation. For no-limit experts this relationship may actually be too good if they're against relatively weak players. Thus this is a reason why no-limit games tend to get tougher over time while games like limit hold 'em and stud don't change as much. But that's another issue.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrretrog
As far as the whole comment goes.

For a start labeling NL as a whole is kinda ******ed, given the difference in variance is so severe from 9-max-HU, The argument can come from arguable to just ridiculous.
I assume he's talking about a game with six to nine players. As for heads-up, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment.

Quote:
Games like Omaha Hi-Lo have much lower variance than NL,
I agree, but they also have a lower win rate and your required bankroll has something to do with the relationship between winrate and variance.

Quote:
obviously FL, and im not an expert on limit games but im sure there is a few others(if not most) that have significantly less variance than NL.
Just to give one example, and some of you might disagree. But it's my opinion that expert players have a similar win rate in $2-$5 no-limit hold 'em and $20-$40 limit hold 'em. Yet the fluctuations in the limit game are far larger.

Quote:
The Edge statement is closer, although id imagine live given the player pool, there is a greater edge available playing PLO than NL for starters.
Maybe. I think this is probably a function of your specific opponents assuming you play each game well. But I really don't know.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGAF
I'm talking about live games you can play for a living. NL has the most edge available and the least amount of variance (and yes, I understand the difference between the 2 concepts).

This is what spino1i said pretty much and you and everyone else flamed him.

NL you can iso, stack someone at any given time, and successfully bluff at a high frequency. Where is all the edge coming from in PLO?
Hi DGAF:

I don't think you're using the term edge correctly. If you used win rate instead, then what you're saying makes sense. Specifically, PLO tends to have larger pots than NL, thus if would be possible to have a higher win rate but a lower edge at the same time. Do you see the difference?

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BustoPro
This point is critical. BR requirements skyrocket as win rate goes down.

Back when the variance simulators first came out, I spent some time looking into this idea. If you could maintain an 8 ptBB/100 win rate you really didn't need much BR at all. At 5, downswings could get nasty. At 3, fuggedaboutit.
Hi BustoPro:

I don't quite agree. As I argued in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics many years ago, those strategies that increase your win rate often come with an increase in variance. (There are exceptions, with the ability to read hands being most notable). So those players with a lower win rate may not need as much bankroll as you indicate since their variance may be lower than the player with a higher win rate. You're assuming the variance remains the same and that may not be the case.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream
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.
I agree.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gman06
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.
Hi gman06:

If you're playing a very small number of hands per hour, your 77% win rate may not be statistically accurate yet. One way of telling is knowing how often other top players win. If others who you think play well are no where close to 77 percent, then your number is probably too high. But if others are doing this well, then your estimate is probably correct.

I also agree that your HU variance could be lower than at ring games if your opponents are making certain errors. Most notably folding too much, especially on the river.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dankhank
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.
Hi dank:

There's another thing that's missing here, and it's are you willing to move down if you've been losing? For instance, if you lose half your bankroll, are you willing to move to a smaller game? If you are, then you probably need a bankroll roughly two-thirds as large as what would be required if you refuse to move down.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franxic
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.
No. Your required blackjack bankroll for a given win rate has a lot to do with the specific rules offered, including the number of decks in play and what percentage of the cards dealt out. Based on my experience from years ago, blackjack swings can be far worse than poker swings.

Best wishes,
Mason
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
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
Required bankroll to assure survival is somewhat counter-intuitive to many players and the amount they really need does seem to be too much. That's because they need to account for the very large swing which only rarely happens.

MM
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:59 AM
Hi Mason Malmuth:

Go home. You're drunk.

Best wishes,
Nutsfl0pper
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dima2000123
And just like with gold rush, the real winners on aggregate were those who were selling supplies.
And just as those real winners were on the supply side, many continued on to become some extremely wealthy people in later years...
This rush hasn't yet "panned out" for a lot of people.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 05:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
I never did this. Again using the techniques outlined in my book, I estimated my required bankroll at three standard deviations, increased it by approximately 10 percent to account for what I call the non-self weighting effect of not having all games you play in being identical, and never had a bankroll issue. (And for those who don't know, the standard deviation is the square root of the variance, and it has some nice properties which are useful for these type of calculations.)
Can you elaborate on this? Standarddeviation over how many hands? The unit of standard deviation most often used seems to be BB/100 hands, but I somehow doubt you would advise to play a game with a 20BB/100 stddev on a 66BB bankroll.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:21 PM
Again, I want to point out that I pulled a few quotes that stand out and Bart shouldn't be held to any of this until you hear the whole interview in context.

As far as I understand it - he's saying many live poker players underestimate the swings that come with poker and play on too small a bankroll. This definitely rings true for me and I'd imagine anyone else who has played regularly/seriously.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 03:46 PM
it might help if someone put some real life, honest to God numbers out there, anonymously or otherwise.
Theoretical formulas attempt to apply to everyone but like any one-size-fits-all thing they apply to no one.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 04:02 PM
I can confirm playing on a five buy in roll live is a terrible idea*






*Which I talked about in my newly published book.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouveau Pauvre
Again, I want to point out that I pulled a few quotes that stand out and Bart shouldn't be held to any of this until you hear the whole interview in context.

As far as I understand it - he's saying many live poker players underestimate the swings that come with poker and play on too small a bankroll. This definitely rings true for me and I'd imagine anyone else who has played regularly/seriously.
I think you underestimate what happens when the fish get targeted by the pros. Many of you think that while you are coasting around in the card rooms making some money that you aren't targeted for the big haul in by the players who has been living of poker for close to a lifetime. I see many who come and play who has a big win when they start out. I would argue that the ev you have the first 5 tournaments and first month of cash probably never will be higher ever again. Once they get to know you the game will become tougher and they will target you. Making 10BB's/hour could become 7BB's/hour once they identify the biggest leaks, after that they pick at the small stuff and you could end up at 3BB's/hour.

I say most blame to much on variance and use this as some devil figure, when I was playing a bit more I will admit that I had some bad streaks and some punishment by this great variance but I will say that most of my "bad luck" was a bad game. I simply didn't play my A-game and let a few important pots slip out of my hands or got involved in some pots I didn't belong in. I know this was my fault and not some god of variance deciding to hassle with me. Given that I have taken some notice to how my game has played out over the years I will admit that variance probably has helped me out more then ruining it for me. I know a few hands where I was far behind but hit to win tournaments but can really only say that there are two tournaments where variance has kicked me in the balls.

The reason why you need so much money in a liquidity market is that this is what you are working with and also making a living of. If you have savings of $1m or a house that you live in for free this should by all means be included in your BR. You can't say that you have a BR of $10k playing games and never need to pay any bills with your winnings. The BRM theories are based on you providing for yourself and other from poker, not having it as a casual hobby if you don't have anything better to do.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote
10-04-2013 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spino1i
its funny Bart would say that because NLH is by far the lowest variance and highest edge game out there. If theres any game you really dont much of a bankroll for (provided your an excellent player) its NLH.
Lol at this.
Bart Hanson Interview "Most live NL Players Need to Triple Their Bankroll Reqs" Quote

      
m