Hi all -

So I'm a reasonably talented home game player (always by far the biggest winner in all home games I've played for the past 15 years) who recently moved to the Portland, OR area.

In the past couple months I've been playing more regularly at the 1/2 live NL games around here, which have zero rake and also seem to be very soft (usually only a couple regs at any given table).

So my question is ... what should my bankroll be? I've read a lot about this, and the general range seems to be 100 BIs at most (i.e. $20,000 for 1/2 NL) while others recommend as low as 20 BIs for a soft game (i.e., $4,000 for 1/2 NL). Another factor is that I'm a recreational player who's just playing once a week or so, and therefore losing my roll isn't the end of the world (i.e. I'm willing to risk a 20% chance of losing the roll with really bad variance).

I began playing purely for entertainment but have easily won $1,000 since starting in the past couple months with just standard TAG play, punishing calling stations, etc., and I also haven't been running especially good (I'd say about average). So I decided to put $1k into the bankroll, officially, and bundle it with the $1k I've already won, and essentially call this my "starting" BR, at 10 buy-ins.

So, is this insane, or is it actually a reasonable roll for a very soft 1/2 live NL game?

As long as you can replenish you money if you lose, you don't need a bankroll. Most rec players have a budget. $2000 is plenty to start with.

I was in a similar spot, played online for years and donked around in home games, and I started more or less the same way. Took 2K from my online roll to fund the 1/2 dream, ran decent to start, and never looked back. (And let's be honest: "ran good to start" is unfortunately the most important part of the whole equation.) 10BI isn't ideal, but since you can replenish if necessary, it's fine. 100BI is more for online grinders or PLO.

FWIW I think building a BR is a good idea even for recs, save what you win until you have 10K or so and feel comfortable taking some shots at 2/5. Maybe spend a wee bit along the way, I'm not saying be a bore, but use your winnings to build a proper roll.

OP sounds like a fortunate/skilled rec player. Still , for now, he is in the "hobby that pays for its self" situation. A typical "run bad" period would likely eat up most of 10 BIs , but still , A simple hobby budget would be enough. Now if the OP has some ambitions , I agree a little BR building and management can't really hurt.

I definitely don't see myself playing more seriously than just an occasional weekend warrior, a hobby that pays for itself ... but the thing is, I can't just replenish a $2k roll overnight, I would probably need to wait a few months just to fit it into my budget. So it wouldn't be the end of the world if I lost my roll but I would definitely be annoyed.

In other news, last night I had my worst session of NL 1/2 since playing in Portland (down $500, all set-over-set and "opponent hits a two-outer on the river" situations). It's one thing to read about variance and another to experience it ... anyway, there goes 25% of my roll haha

Just set a maximum amount you're willing to spend each month if it turns out things go sower and add it to the bankroll until you're up to 25 buy ins. After that the risk of going broke with a reasonable winrate and little volume is virtually 0. If you run well you'll never need another cent and if it doesn't you've just used up your budget.

Well it also sounds like you need to consider some amount as a "stop loss" for a weekend session. With a budget of 2K and it not being easy to quickly rebuild it (not all that rare for an occasional rec player actually) , I would consider only bringing two buy ins for a session. If you can increase your poker budget with some skill and a little run good then you could handle losing more from time to time which you likely will. Right now only putting 20% of your roll at risk per session seems wise. Just one opinion.

right, basically in my head I've said that $150/month is my "poker entertainment budget," so if I lose $2000 in a few months (unlikely, but possible) I'll wait to reload until I've gotten to the full year.

my plan for a stop-loss was 3 BIs, which seemed reasonable; last night I lost 2.5 BIs and figured I would probably play a bit tilted after that, so I didn't bother buying in for my last $100 (I brought exactly 3 BIs with me). but I think you're right that 20% of my roll is probably a better idea, so I'll just bring 2 BIs next time.

great advice, thanks!

I still like the words from another mod on 2+2 paraphrased here to....

Recreational players use a training budget and not bankroll management as their cash control strategy. Seems like you get the budget idea from your last post.

you arent likely to lose your whole roll as most losing nights there you wont lose over a few hundred, so you can replenish your roll as you go along. plus you dont have to have 10 buyins before you sit down or not play. two is plenty. you are allowed to go home stuck and its a good idea usually for most players to leave after going broke twice in a game.

i would be outraged at myself getting stuck even 5 buyins at those games.

yeah, I don't really tilt very much but after losing 2.5 buyins to some really annoying bad beats (I was 80%+ to win in every big pot) ... just, sigh

but you're right, it's definitely an advantage that I'm allowed to go home stuck as a rec player; I can just take a couple weeks off, vs. having to go back in there tomorrow (and probably not playing optimally)

You're a rec player with a real job, so barring any strange circumstances, you don't have or need a bankroll.

You don't need to replenish to $2K, just enough to play your next session. Again - and I don't mean to harp on it this way - but you don't have a need for a bankroll.

Think about it for a minute. If you wanted a "real" bankroll, you'd have to wait until you could save $20,000. Why on earth would you want to do that? Or more to the point, why would you want to pretend to have a bankroll anyway? Bankrolls are meant for different situations.

OK let me put this another way.

Why would you want to put a stop loss on any given night? Let's say you have 20 buyins, and you lose 3 buyins through bad luck on your next session in just 1 hour. So that is your stop loss and you stop playing.

But stop and think. Why do you have a bankroll to begin with? It's to avoid busting out. What exactly is the problem with busting out? It's that you can't play poker any more. (I'm assuming you're a winning player now.) So if you stop yourself, then you've stopped playing poker without even busting out. You haven't come close to busting out, and yet you're self inflicting the punishment you would have received if you had busted out. Why would you do that?

Play until you lose. Then get more money and play until you lose that, if necessary. Just keep playing and having fun. The only reasons to put a stop loss are if it makes you play bad or you simply aren't having fun. Personally I think there are pretty easy remedies for those things, but YMMV.

stop loss is good here is why.

you can be losing because of things you cannot perceive like}

playing badly but thinking your playing well.
getting cheated in some way
players playing differently for some reason and you dont adjust
a bad seat position for you that you dont realize

Those reasons are fine, but let's stop and think about what the context is. He's been playing in the same games and the same player pool for months, and he's been winning. So it's unlikely anything's going on.

Also, I think you need experience being a few buyins down and still playing. Otherwise you'll spend your whole life quitting after a couple bad beats and never learning any mental toughness, or even how you play and react after losing. It takes practice.

"Bankroll" isn't the right word ... I guess let's say, "separated pot of money in my annual finances allotted for poker," and I'd like to keep that pot of money high enough so that I can realistically play poker for a year without losing the entire amount. And so I'm wondering if $2k is realistic enough to last me for 12 months, given variance, in a soft 1/2 NL game.

If this isn't a "bankroll" but instead a "budgeted poker entertainment fund" then I probably just misunderstand the term.

Realistically after I replenish with "just enough for my next session" after a few losing sessions I can't justify spending any more on poker, at least for a while ... I have a real job (~$80k per year) but also a wife, three small children, etc., and can't justify too much. In other words I wouldn't be replacing the $2k if I lost it (i.e., if I had a few sessions in a month where I ran bad, I would be at $0 and would stop playing until the following year).

Plus frankly I had my first big losing session yesterday and felt physically ill (though I stayed friendly and played normally), so probably I'm too risk averse and just too stressed by variance to play 1/2 NL seriously lol. I'm still up ~$500 over the past two months but yeah, I dunno ...

Well, I think you should include emotional toughness as one of your poker skills that you need to work on. Get used to dumping off a buyin if you need to. Maybe read Tommy Angelo or authors like that.

Really, $2,000 isn't enough mathematically, even though it very well might last you forever. Then again, you don't need to reload the entire $2,000. You seem to think you do, but I guess that's up to you. If it were me, and I busted my poker wallet, I'd just buy in for $300 next week. Or better yet, buy in for the smallest allowed - and play a short stack with 3 $100 buyins.

As a long time pro with 10's of thousands of hours of casino time. I can honestly say that an absolute minimal percentage of poker players do not tilt in some type of way when they are getting nuked. Nearly every one save for a handful of highly skilled pros that have minimal tilt tendencies would be far far better served walking away after dropping a few buyins

just sayin

correct on all counts squid

This is why I advocate building an actual BR, even if you are and intend to stay a 1/2 rec.

These sorts of discussions happen from time to time, and they almost never take into account what you as OP want. It sounds like you have a bit of money now (2K minus your last session), and what you'd like is to turn it into a fund that will last a long time, allowing you to weather the ups and downs you'll surely experience over months/years of playing poker. AND you don't want to have to replenish this amount. If this is the case, you need to put close to 100% of your winnings into building your BR.

Obv some people disagree, but IMO the term "bankroll" is exactly the right word.

Another factor is that as the months and years go on, you'll want/need your game to expand beyond the essentially boring TAG strategy that works in 1/2. You'll want to add more 3bets and even a few bluff 4bets to your arsenal. But when your "I can't lose more than this" amount is 2K, you're very unlikely to find spots to make big bluffs.

Pretty much all good stuff here ... I think that rec players that try to apply BRM are better off in their game in the long run, but it primarily does come down to what you want to get out of the game.

I find it very hard to believe that most recs 'could' take off 7-12 months to rebuild your poker budget after some bad beats. That would be like a golfer not hitting the course to work on their driving on the range IMO.

I usually go with the 3 BI approach per session, but usually have more than that on me so if I think the game is still beatable I can stay longer. I don't think I ever have more than 10-15 BI in my 'BR' since I funnel the cash to a vacation fund.

I may have missed it, but what are your plans for your BR if it grows? Vacation? Larger stakes? Tournament shot? This also has a big affect on how you handle your approach. GL

OP I'll throw out a few things that are slightly off topic but related:

1. Make sure you are posting 1 or 2 hands per session in the small-stakes NL forum. You will invariably have hands where you made a decision that you weren't absolutely sure was correct - post those for feedback. You'll usually get multiple points of view to evaluate which improves your overall understanding of the game. Also, you may be surprised at spots where you were absolutely sure you played it right but actually played it wrong.

2. Consider FLHE if it is spread in your area. The advantages to FLHE are 1) it's much, much, much more fun than NLHE, and 2) You are in minimal danger of losing $400 in less than 4 hours at limits up to $5/$10 once you've read Sklansky, Miller and Malmuth's book. The disadvantages are 1) the rake devours profits - it's really hard to maintain a winrate of more than $8/hr., and 2) nobody plays FLHE online, and when they do they don't play it the way you'll see it in casinos with 5 to 7 people limping into every pot, so it's harder to "practice" away from the table.

3. Consider shortstacking NLHE. It's soul-crushingly, mind-numbingly boring, but it's profitable and a good way to get your feet wet and learn how to play the NLHE game "one street at a time" as you move from shortstack to midstack to deepstack.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...05/?highlight=

All 3 of these suggestions are things you can do to help make that budget last as long as possible.

my goal is to put all winnings into my roll until I have $5k or so, and then I'll shift into being more aggressive, 3-betting, bluffing more turns and rivers. so the idea is to play boring TAG until I build up my roll. it's 100% true that I'm not going to make crazy bluffs at the moment, as I don't want to risk my small $2k roll (which is sub-optimal, obviously). My long-term goal is to be a winning player in 1/2 NL, I'd be happy with $10/hr.

I can definitely take 7-12 months off if I lost $2k, I'm actually very risk-averse (which is starting to make me question my foray beyond home games ... lol) and the stress of playing with money beyond my bankroll will definitely just have me doing other things on Friday nights for a few months.

this is all incredibly helpful, thanks.


I've only played 6-7 sessions so far in these live games (over the past couple months), and honestly I only had one really confusing hand, so I posted that in a thread last week. (Ultimately the forums decided that I misplayed it, so it was good for me to ask.) I've had oddly straightforward decisions in almost every other spot ... just variance, I'm sure I'll have a ton of tricky hands in a single session next week.


The only other hand I considered asking about was (hero) AA vs (villain) QQ, villain raised to $10 pre (EP), hero 3-bets to $30 (LP), only us two to the flop; Q92, then 7, then 5 (rainbow). He checked all three streets, I bet all three streets, he had flopped top set. I think I played this correctly because his range is AA (mostly blocked), AK (somewhat blocked), KK, QQ, JJ, AQ, maybe KQ, and then maybe JTs or whatever, so on a dry board my AA is good most of the time, but I wonder if I overplayed it a bit.


I actually started with FLHE, tried in 2016, just a couple sessions ... the smallest game around here is 4/8, and it's just 1-2 tables of super-nitty regs, in a depressing tiny card room, so I gave up on that pretty quickly lol.


Short-stacking is a great idea and that thread is very helpful, he actually makes some arguments I hadn't considered ... that's definitely a way to make your BR last longer, and then for a relatively amateur player (like myself) it's optimal. I'm probably the third or fourth best player at these tables, so it really doesn't make sense for me to buy-in for anywhere close to the max.