This forum is kinda sparse, but I thought I'd post my "bankroll management formula" in case anyone would find it useful or had any additional thoughts.

I divide it into three different "categories" : Casual / Serious Grinder / Pro

I start with a base of 30 / 50 / 100, to match each category.

Starting with $1 = whichever base of buy-ins, you increase by 1/10th of the base every time the buy-in amount doubles ($1 = 50, $2 = 55, $4 = 60, etc., to use the "serious grinder" example), with proportional adjustments for numbers that fall in-between. The increase is to account for the increased variance/difficulty as you move up in stakes. It's kind of arbitrary, but I think the underlying concept is sound.

Example : A $1.10 tournament would fall 10% of the way between 1 and 2, so you would need an extra 0.5 buy-ins, or 50.5 total to play that stake. (For anything below a dollar, just simply use a flat number of 50.)

To account for formats that require more variance, I add a multiplier of 1 + 0.5 for every separate thing that adds variance to the game. So, for example, if I play a short-handed turbo, I would multiply the final result by 2 (1 +0.5 for being short-handed, and another +0.5 for being a turbo).

An example of how this would work out, playing 9M regular SNG's on ACR, as a "serious grinder" (but not a pro) :

$1.50 $0.15 53.25 $87.87
$3.00 $0.30 58.25 $192.23
$5.00 $0.50 61.88 $340.32
$10.00 $1.00 66.88 $735.63
$15.00 $1.50 70.16 $1,157.58
$20.00 $2.00 71.88 $1,581.25
$30.00 $3.00 75.16 $2,480.16
$50.00 $5.00 78.59 $4,322.66
$80.00 $8.00 81.88 $7,205.00
$100.00 $9.00 83.52 $9,103.21

(Sorry, I suck at cut and paste and formatting.)

If you wanted to play the same game on ACR, but instead turbos (adding an addition 1.5 multiplier, for the variance) :

$1.50 $0.12 53.10 $129.04
$3.00 $0.25 58.13 $283.36
$5.00 $0.45 61.81 $505.32
$10.00 $0.90 66.81 $1,092.39
$15.00 $1.40 70.13 $1,725.08
$20.00 $1.75 71.80 $2,342.38
$30.00 $2.75 75.12 $3,690.14
$50.00 $4.75 78.55 $6,451.31
$80.00 $6.50 81.76 $10,608.08
$100.00 $8.00 83.44 $13,516.88

For cashing out, I stole an idea from a thread from years ago from some site (I forget exactly where), created by Jennifear, where you "pay yourself" 3% of every SNG you enter, out of your bankroll, plus any rakeback or bonuses whenever you hit the site's minimum. This way, if you're not hitting at least 3%, you'll naturally get knocked down to a lower stake where you'll probably be more profitable plus pay yourself reasonably along the way. (I exclude this for pure bankroll builds though.)

As far as the "pro" guideline, I left out any considerations for "liferoll requirements" that you need to have in addition to minimum bankroll considerations. That's a whole 'nother conversation that is outside the scope of this post. Using a "base of 100" might even be low, and it's probably arguable that a base of 150 or even 200 would be better. Using a "base of 50" though, that incrementally increases, has worked out reasonably well for "not just screwing around" bankroll management.

Anyway, kind of long, and probably overly complicated, but I thought I'd share it in case anyone found it useful.

There are some problems with how you are trying to calculate this. Basically Risk of Ruin directly increases for equivalent bankrolls as roi decreases. This means (assuming an efficient site) higher stakes will always require more buyins than lower ones.

Also, assuming a usa player, you will have mixed buyins which will inherently have a higher variance than a player who plays all of the exact same average buyin. If you run good at your best game then you will run good and if you don't then it will take a lot of running good at the lower buyin to make up for this.

One should also account for how many buyins they need to actually sit down and play. For a person who is single tabling this doesn't matter much but this person can never achieve a significant hourly so this hypothetical is not worth considering. Not only do you need to withstand a swong and still be able to load a fullset, but you need to be able to account for something like the power going out which an ROI simulator will never be able to accurately account for. Yes this is counted into your ROI over a large sample, but ROI simulator does not assume that one in every 500 sets you are going to lose 10+ buyins at the same time. It assumes a perfectly random distribution.

Also if you are a pro, eating rice instead of ordering good ass pizza that you are use to is not good for your game when you are already getting ripped at the tables. I'm not saying this to come here and **** on your post or method, but basically your estimates are not conservative enough by a lot. For pros you need like 250 buyins plus minimum two months living expenses. Saying this as someone who tried and failed.

For a casual player, 30-40 is probably fine to move up to a game where the rake is significantly lower, and maybe like above 75 BI its ok to shot the next stake if you are fairly sure you are a winner there and don't need the money at all. It's also worth considering that less experienced players are less likely to be disciplined with their BR and more likely to tilt.

ROI Simulator is your friend for stuff like that. Not sure if that program is still a thing but statistics and reason don't lie. Think, plan, deduce, and you can be successful. Hope this helps.

Not really. Honestly, I get the impression that you didn't read the post.

1. You do bring up a good point about multi-tabling versus single-tabling. My bankroll requirements do not account for this, and that's definitely worth extra consideration. Mass-multi-tablers inherently have more of their bankroll in play at any given point, so it's intuitive that you would need to be more conservative than a single-tabler.

2. I don't understand why you keep bringing up ROI. If you can't win at a given stake, you would naturally have to drop down until you are at a stake you can beat. If you can't beat the lowest stakes, then there's no bankroll management that can help you anyway. At that point, you're just trying to minimize damage.

3. The criticism of the "pro" part is fair. My intention was to imply that any conversation about doing it for a living would start with 100 BI's, with living expenses (I would recommend 6+) and then go from there. 200+ is probably more accurate for that kind of conversation, and I will be the first to state that my original post was almost entirely aimed at serious players trying to spin up bankrolls. Professional level bankroll management is a long conversation that is beyond the scope of what I was trying to do, and I should have maybe been clearer about that.

Whoever brings up Jennifear (especially in 2020) should be instabanned from this forum really.

Love it when clueless people trying to make systems for what they have no idea about.... By any coincidence do you happen to have a college degree in math or smth?

Here's what you need for "serious" play (lol) - I mean playing sngs full time: 10-15k USD as bankroll, 2-3k for software and hardware + a **** ton of time to spend with playing & improving your game

/thread

.

Either an idea is a good one on its own or it's not. I can't/won't speak to her material in general. I happened to think that idea was useful.

We don't know each other. I don't think either of us has any grounds to call the other "clueless". If you want to be insulting, go right ahead, but I'm not impressed. You come off as incredibly insecure and sad. I hope you aren't.

May or may not be true, depending on a wide variety of things. Your response was vague as to be meaningless. That's cool, I guess.

Nothing like that bro it's just the quality of these forums went incredibly downhill mainly because of the the people like you: few months old account, likely yet to have a relevant sample size let alone beating any format but already posting strategy, giving advice to players who consistently beat the game for 10+ years, referring to content which was sketchy at best but more like laughable in its time and clearly you don't even have much idea about the author itself.

Yeah BTW thanks for telling me what a proper BR management is like (in theory) during my time playing of more than 100,000 turbo sit and goes I haven't figured what works (or would've been worked) best but thanks to your incredible theory I'm delighted. Also the guy who was already a sick 18man turbo reg before you was going to elementary school I'm sure appreciates what you got to share... Still we didn't mind helping you a little out. It's not like we are insulting you, you insulting us.

Just by how you talk about these topics I can tell you are clueless. It's alright everyone was, I personally preferred to listen or initiate civil discussion mainly in the form of asking question instead of telling it how it is with guys have the sample size and experience in the 100x times than me.

Its people like you why these forums are dead basically, I myself also only posting because I lost my account and (it sounds a little sad) kinda grinding a marketplace access. Also maybe just maybe connect with players who are kinda ok, still playing the games and wanting to improve (like talking strat in private etc) - no, not with you though.

Hope this helped

I wasn't giving advice. That was a template that I developed for myself and I consider it a work in progress. It was not at all meant to be "authoritative" by any stretch of the imagination. If you failed to pick up on that, then start here, I guess : https://proliteracy.org/What-We-Do/Programs-Projects


Not my intention, but you're welcome, I guess.


I seriously doubt it, but I don't really care either. If you were insulted, then good. You probably deserve to feel that way.


Your loss, not mine.

Registered: 2020 April, comments: 16, posting links....

OK I'm outta here

Oh yeah and thanks for your high quality and insightful "bankroll formula" post I'm sure it meant a lot for everyone especially in this forum rofl

I might would've advice heading over to the beginners questions section (as people like you more welcome there) - but honestly this forum just would be better off entirely if you'd **** off

Oh, darn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVznerpOkTI

If anyone has any useful advice on the topic, instead of trying to be some sort of self-important self-appointed gatekeeper, more than happy to read it.

Admittedly, I should have been more clear about this : This is what I had developed for myself, and it has worked out reasonably well. There are obviously flaws to it, and improvement is always a good thing. As I mentioned, Regret$ actually brought up a good point about multi-tabling v single-tabling, for instance. If anyone has constructive thoughts and aren't just looking to flex how cool they think they are, feel free.

Trust this man, he is an expert on the matter.
(Hope you are doing great Mike!)



OP, there is simply no magic formula for BR Management. I have a rule of thumb which is, go by whatever floats your boat. Some people are more risk-adverse, some less. Some (like Mike ) have insanely heavy or long loosing stretches despite being winning players...

I like the 3% idea somewhat, but I wonder if its a practical solution in practice.

Burrrrnnnn

I don't think there's a "magic formula" either. My goal was to come up with something generally workable/reasonable to account for most swings. Most of what I've encountered recommends 25-50 for "recreational", 50-80 for building, and then 100/150/200/250+ whatever beyond that, depending on a long book's worth of considerations that are beyond this thread, so I started there. Different people have different goals, so there's a lot of range.

I think people could tinker with it quite a bit. The main goal with that is to "naturally" force you back down to a lower level if you can't consistently clear 3% ROI at any given stake. If I'm breaking even at the $5.50's, for instance, it's likely I'd make more at the $3.30's, and I probably need to drop down and work out some issues anyway.