Please explain the difference. Shouldn't there be an X amt of funds one should risk/day?

Why did fulltilt get frozen but not other sites?

Pokerstars was frozen too, it was unfrozen to allow players to get paid back, which happened on April 27th, less than 2 weeks after Black Friday. Full Tilt didn't have any funds to unfreeze, so to speak, as it emerged players' money wasn't segregated, and had been used to pay owners/shareholders

Normally it's recommended that you shouldn't think of your poker bankroll as money, it's X number of buy-ins for whatever stakes you play (ideally 20+ buy-ins to absorb variance), set aside for poker only, you're prepared to lose it and are not using it for life expenses. Thinking in these terms, it doesn't matter how many you dollars (buy-ins) you lose in a day if you decide you have an edge in a given game (putting external factors like tilt, flexibility to move down in stakes at the current time, time delay before you can replenish your roll, etc. aside). All that matters is that you're making +EV decisions and getting in volume, losses are just variance

A budget is an amount of money that gets spent.

A bankroll is an amount of money that gets invested.

The aims are completely different. Losing players have budgets. Winning players have bankrolls. Granted, if you are actually a losing player it's all semantics and you always have a budget no matter what you call it. However, if you are a winning player playing with a one buy-in bankroll you're like a boxer stepping in the ring against Manny Pacino after tying one of your hands behind your bank. It doesn't matter how good you are, you're going to get knocked the **** out a lot.

Thx, so Pokerstars is 'safe' to play w/ real money now? Is there a better site?

I see your bankroll explanation, but what if you're really having a MAJORLY BAD day, all due to bad variance (i.e. making +EV moves but getting sucked out all the time): does that mean you would still repeatedly buyin until all your bankroll is depleted in just that 1 day (theoretically, of course, because it wouldn't be much of a bankroll if it could blown up in 1 day), or would you set a limit for each day?


Sure, I can see that the bankroll being an investment, but unfortunately for 85% of players, they are losers, 10% are b/e and only 5% are truly winners (approx figures). I guess that I'm a b/e player. Anyway, I'm taking about limiting to only 1 BI/day, not having a 1 BI bankroll.

I don't get your boxing analogy...who the heck is Manny Pacino?

yeah the safest and best by a wide margin, still not available to US tho'

well the same exact bad run of say 5000 hands could happen over 1 day, 10 days of 500 hands each, or 100 days of 50 hands. your career is one long session, a 'day' has no meaning imo. you just don't want to lose your bankroll over a period of time of any length, short or long. from a purely poker standpoint it shouldn't matter

add in factors like controlling tilt, needing time to rebuild your roll, no longer being sure if you have an edge, suspicion of cheating going on, the changing game dynamics (you having a bad image from losing) etc, then that might change, but if that all stays static, i don't see a difference, yeah i'd go poker-broke in a day i guess, and rebuild from other sources/get staked

No. No.

You should not ever be playing in a situation where all your roll is, or can be, on the table.

You should be playing at a limit where your roll equals many buyins (say 30 or 40, but it depends on the game). After a certain point if you have lost a bunch, you need to move down to a lower limit.

Also, if you're playing well, but getting sucked out on, this isn't a reason to quit - because you can tell that today is going to be unlucky. This is known as the Gambler's Fallacy.

That is an interesting perspective. I guess if one is running that bad but still making +EV plays, it could be disastrous.

darkprince, how much money is in your poker bankroll? Related question: do you even have a poker bankroll?

By this I mean to see if you segregate your living bankroll from your poker bankroll.....even if in perception only.

If you are a break-even player (or even a slightly profitable player), being on the bad end of variance could mean you lose 10 buy-ins (or more) in 10,000 hands. That's why it's recommended you have 15, 20 or 30+ buy-ins in your bankroll. You'll always have enough to stay solvent. Moving to lower stakes as soon as you've lost X amount of buy-ins during a period of runbad is a way to lessen the losses and to get your confidence back. If you were able to lose 10 buy-ins in much less than 10,000 hands, it would most likely be mainly due to bad play rather than just bad luck. Although it's possible (and indeed expected over a large sample), it's rare to lose 10 flips in a row.

I have about low 5 figures that I set aside for my poker bankroll. I don't have a definite amt but that is the figure I can afford to lose due to bad play/variance.

Are you based outside of USA....and is depositing easy?

It does make a bit of difference in how to answer your initial question. Assuming that low five figure minimum is $10K (and not $100.00), then at the 1/2 level, you have at a minimum 50 BIs......enough emo. But it may not be enough if you are USA and find it hard to deposit.

Yup, I'm not in the USA and depositing appears to be easy w/ PokerStars.

Wait, we're talking about online? Why are you talking about playing 200NL online? You will get absolutely destroyed.

Online players are much, much better than live players at the same stakes. There are a number of reasons why:

1 - In casinos, the lowest stakes are $1/$2 NL. Online, the lowest stakes are $.01/$.02 NL. So online the worst players are playing $.01/$.02 NL. Live they're playing $1/$2 NL. Online, $.01/$.02 NL is SIX levels below $1/$2 NL.

2 - Getting into a live game is far more casual than an online game. Live games often have inexperienced players stumble into the game on their way from the blackjack tables to the slots. Online you need to download and install the software, register an account and figure out a way to deposit. Online takes a far greater level of dedication JUST TO GET STARTED.

3 - When a player wants to make more money live, he moves up in stakes. Online, he multi-tables. In this way online players are able to put much more money in play while limiting their exposure in any one hand and avoid playing with better players. Online $.5/$1 NL players can make a nice living out of multi-tabling. There aren't very many live $1/$2 NL pros.

4 - No HUDs or Pokertracker live.

5 - Online players see many more hands per hour, particularly if they multi-table. More hands per hour equals more experience equals better play.

6 - Free alcohol in many casinos.

....err,,,uhhhh. darkprince are you a predominately live 1/2 player as CMAR suggests? ((Musta missed that fact in earlier posts by you))

If so..... 200NL will not go well for you as CMAR states above.

My basic assumption is that anyone asking about 1/2 NL in Beginners is talking about live. An online $200NL player should be way beyond anything the Beginners Forum has to offer.

That's why yer the orange, and I'm the green. Also, you probably get all the chicks, too. Chicks dig orange*.





























*Coppertone ftw

Thx for the lookout. Yes, I'm just a 1/2 live player but if I go online, I'll definitely do the lowest blinds at first. No way I'm jumping to 1/2 online.


As above. Thx for the comments in any event.

Btw, how can certain ppl multi-table successfully? How is it possible to concentrate on 1 table of 9 opponents (seeing their betsizing, delays, patterns, etc) multiplied by many other tables? It just makes my head explode. Why wouldn't they focus 100% on 1 table, kill it, then move onto another? Or they are just that good to kill at all the tables they play at one time?

@darkprince: While there is value lost in marginal situations by the multi-tabler, playing fundamentally solid poker on several tables can generate a total profit that is greater than focussing on one table. Each player has a different equilibrium point where profit no longer keeps increasing as the number of tables increased. For some people, maximum total profit is at 2 tables, for others it's 4, or 8, 16, or 24.
If you want numbers to back it up, here's an example:
A player wins 10bb/100 on 1 table. Let's say it takes an hour to play 100 hands. In one hour, he wins 10 big blinds.
When he moves to 2 tables, his winrate falls to 7bb/100 on both of 2 tables. In one hour, he wins 7 big blinds on one table and 7bb on the other, for a total of 14bb in an hour. That's greater than the 10bb total he won by playing one table.
Now he moves to 4 tables, where he wins 5bb/100 on each. In one hour he will win 4x5=20 big blinds. His total hourly earn is higher on 4 tables than it was on 1 or 2.
When he moves to 16 tables, he misses a lot of value by not having good reads on players. His win rate falls to 1bb/100 on each of 16 tables. In one hour, he will win 1x16=16 big blinds. His total hourly earn is now lower than it was with 4 tables (20bb), so he should reduce the number of tables he plays. The most profitable situation occurs where winrate*tables is at a maximum.

^That's too amazing for me. Kudos to those that can play >1 table.

It's like a lot of things, practice it and you get better at it.

Play one table, then add another one once you feel you are on top of it. As you feel comfortable add another table etc.

YMMV but, for myself, I prefer to play 3-4 tables so I can properly observe all the action.

Hi,

On which forum should I post a hand from live tournaments?

Thanks.

You could post it here in BQ if you are a beginner, or there is the Live Low Stakes NL Forum.

Welcome to the forums.

what does uNL mean?