You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
BRM advice
I know this has probably been discussed 1000 times, but i need some advice on bank roll management, ive always just played whatever i fancied playing at any time regardless of how it will effect my BR occasionally dabbling it £22 or £33 £55 HU games after going on a good run of dyms and losing my whole roll in one game... i know that this obviously isnt ever going to help me stay profitable in the long run so ive decided to put myself on a strict BRM system, what would u guys advise for dyms? when should i be moving up to £2.23 dyms? 20/30 buy ins? and how low should i let it go before i move back down a level, also i like to play in some bounty hunters and deep stack would u reccomend the same amount of buy ins before playing in tournies?
i have improved my game massively in the last year (making back nearly all of the £800+ id lost the previous year ) and i think that by following this i may finally get into porfit overall so any advice is welcome!
i have improved my game massively in the last year (making back nearly all of the £800+ id lost the previous year ) and i think that by following this i may finally get into porfit overall so any advice is welcome!
Comments
BRM is all about how much I am prepared to lose for any session.5-10 buy-in wins/losses happen regular don't they.
I think for DYM's you are just about spot on...for building your b/roll anyway,move up when you have 21 buy-ins drop down when you go below 20 buy-ins...and stick to it.
I don't play bounty hunters or tournaments but if I did I would like probably around double the buy-ins as for DYM's.
i'm sure others will have a better idea then me.
the one thing I do know as i'm sure you do is that the more buy-ins you have for each level the better & the less it seems to hurt you when you do lose. you know when you are playing the right level for your b/roll when you can lose 10 buy-ins or more for the games you are playing and it doesn't bother you at all.
(so for me; playing £3 DYM's if I had a 10 buy-in losing session (£33) with a b/roll of around 100 buy-ins (£300+) that would be fine for me.)
any less than 50 buy-ins (£150) then it would start hurting a little losing a £30+ session, but I would still carry on playing there until I got down to the 20 buy-in mark (£60) and then drop to the £2's...reluctantly.
gl mate
dev
i'm not playing DYM at the moment as i'm trying to play cash this year
BRM is different for everyone and i'm sure you will find your own way with it.
best wishes
dev
I'd opt for around 20BI for cash, 50BI for SnGs, and 100BI for tourneys. DYMs are extremely low variance so you could easily push that down to 20 too.
Me personally, I've stood by half of that (so 10BI v 25BI v 50BI) and never gone broke. Don't be afraid to push yourself a little outside of that comfort zone BRM wise. It's usually bankroll-tilting (i.e. moving up in stakes when you're losing) that sends people busto, so as long as you're disciplined to some degree you'll be fine.
I think with the low variance you can play half the amount you suggest for DYMS and still be comfortable
hi mate
just wanted to add this...
if you go to bed worrying about how much you have just lost...
(which I have,and i'm sure you have mate,) ...
then you are playing OUTSIDE your b/roll level.
if you can go to bed and feel like 'no worries,i'll win it back tomorrow' sort of feeling..
then you know you are playing INSIDE your b/roll.
dev
Losing 10BI in a row wouldn't be uncommon over a large sample size, for sure. But let's say just for for arguments sake that we're a solid player that can finish ITM an average amount of the time, 1 in 3.
That means for the example you gave, there would be a ~1.7% chance of OP losing 10 games in a row. And a 0.03% chance of losing 20 games in a row (assuming he's still a 1 in 3 chance to always cash). Highly unlikely, and not enough to put significant weight on, imo.
You also said...
Without even querying how you came to the 'you break even' calculation, there's a logical fallacy here. Either the position has been misrepresented, or there's incorrect language being used.
The problem is, you didn't address the position of 'What if OP ran well?'.
What you should have said, is that if he ran-bad, vs what if he ran-well. Instead of running-bad vs not running bad. The two arn't opposites.
Assuming you're a winning player capable of dealing with swings, you're gunna want to have aggressive BRM. For me, in SnGs, that would be something like 10BI at the micro limit, and slowly increase as you moved up in stakes. For arguments' sake, I'll stick with 20BI, as I think that's a little more reasonable, considering we're just starting out.
My 50BI guideline up top was a general rule of thumb for those wishing to take poker seriously, and would be my glass ceiling for no. of BI needed at a certain stake, regardless of how small my edge is. The bigger the edge, and the lower the variance, the less BI you'll need.
20BI is fine, so long as you stay disciplined.
GL
If you run bad then obviously you will need more buy in's than 5
If your a winning player at the level of your choice then 20bi's is fine.
If your not a winning player or untried at the game/level you want to play then you will probbaly need more buy in's.
But if you are a loosing player it doesn't matter if you start with 20 or 200 bi's, your going to lose the lot eventually.
End of the day BR should be there to stop you going bust when varaince kicks you in the teeth.
A BR doesn't guarentee that you win!
Your example is malformed, and poorly explained. Losing 10BI in a row wouldn't be uncommon over a large sample size, for sure. But let's say just for for arguments sake that we're a solid player that can finish ITM an average amount of the time, 1 in 3. That means for the example you gave, there would be a ~1.7% chance of OP losing 10 games in a row. And a 0.03% chance of losing 20 games in a row (assuming he's still a 1 in 3 chance to always cash). Highly unlikely, and not enough to put significant weight on, imo.
so what your saying is that approx 1/50 times you play 10 games, you will lose all of them. This doesnt take into account the times that you win 1, or come 2nd in 1 and lose the rest, or come 2nd in 2 and lose the rest etc etc. what happens if you have a few losing days in a row? what happens if you arent playing your best for a few days? There are lots more things to consider than the number of games you will lose in a row. I dont think I am the one with the poorly formed arguments here...
You also said... "with Bad beats: you lose 10 BIs without Bad Beats: you break even (before rake)" Without even querying how you came to the 'you break even' calculation, there's a logical fallacy here. Either the position has been misrepresented, or there's incorrect language being used. The problem is, you didn't address the position of 'What if OP ran well?' . What you should have said, is that if he ran-bad, vs what if he ran-well. Instead of running-bad vs not running bad. The two arn't opposites
I wasn't claiming to have covered every scenario, my (over simplified) example was purley to show how much a few beats can effect your winrate. I think I demonstrated that without showing what would happen if you ran well. Oh and my break even calculations come from where i say "you dont cash in any of the others". so you just have the 2 * 1st place (£8) and the 1* 2nd place (£2) which i do believe =£10. I may not have explained as clearly as possible.
Assuming you're a winning player capable of dealing with swings, you're gunna want to have aggressive BRM. For me, in SnGs, that would be something like 10BI at the micro limit, and slowly increase as you moved up in stakes. For arguments' sake, I'll stick with 20BI, as I think that's a little more reasonable, considering we're just starting out
This is quite a common tactic used to build your bankroll quicker. It works, as long as you dont mind the risk of having to reload once or twice until you reach the level you are aiming for and use safer BR management. Im not sure what kind of swings your planning on dealing with when you have a 10BI BR though.
My 50BI guideline up top was a general rule of thumb for those wishing to take poker seriously, and would be my glass ceiling for no. of BI needed at a certain stake, regardless of how small my edge is. The bigger the edge, and the lower the variance, the less BI you'll need. 20BI is fine, so long as you stay disciplined
I actually agree with you here (for DYMs only) - 20/30 BI's would be fine for DYM, where you have a decent edge.
I am a winning player, I play MTTs on sky and I have had an approx. 75BI downswing on sky fairly recently - I stick by my guidlines for SnGs and MTTs for those that want to take poker seriously and not have to reload. Its fine to take risks to get where you want to be though, especially if you can afford to reload and start again if things go wrong.
50 BI's minimum for SnGs
100 BI's Minimum for tournaments
You'll find that alot of top pro's play well within those limits and are even Nittier
http://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-Statistics//networks/SkyPoker/players/chicknmelt - downswing from game 600ish
The second part is obvious. That's why I stated "Losing 10BI in a row" and "...losing 10 games in a row". It's self-explanatory, and attempting to clarify it even further is redundant. Not 'having a go', just stating. I wasn't directly addressing the size of downswings or how likely they are. Merely your own assertion that losing 10BI in a row isn't terribly unlikely.
"This shows how big an effect even a few hands that dont go your way can have -..."
When in fact, the true chance of that happening would be ~1.7%. I felt that the events described by yourself were being misrepresented, which is why I addressed that in particular, and not downswings.
Assuming you're a winning player, it's easy (albeit a tad niave) to extrapolate the information given and apply it to downswings, and the likelihood of them. Right, but if you want to offer a balanced argument, you must demonstrate both sides. That's how debates work. By saying:
You may not be intentionally doing this, but you're showcasing an unbalanced assessment of luck, when some people might easily see these as true opposites. (i.e. with bad beats, and without.) Also, playing in a game where you don't take bad-beats, would surely mean you run well, no? These terms are ambiguous, which is why you don't see elite players using them. They talk about running above and below expectation (EV), which is an easier, more accurate description of running well/running bad. Why would you have to reload?
Let's say we start with a £75 bankroll.
Now, we have move down to the £2 level. We continue to run ridiculously way below expectation, and lose a further 19BI.
Our bankroll now sits at £19, and we're forced to move down to the lowest stakes, the £1 level. So to go bust from here, we'd have to lose another 19BI.
So, to bust our entire roll (which was 25BI to begin with), we'd in fact, have to go on a 43BI downswing. Sound uncommon? That's because it is! Is it possible, yes. But insanely unlikely.
(as stated in earlier posts, the higher you'd go, the more BI you'd need to cope with the smaller edge, and higher variance)
Awesome.
MTTs and SnGs, cannot be compared when it comes to BRM. The variance in MTTs is just crazy, and all dependant on the field size, and the skill level of your opponents.
Using my example again, if you started with, let's say, a £250 BR and used the 100BI rule, and you went on a 75BI downswing...
You'd in fact, still be left with £150 in your roll, and be more than comfortable still playing at the £1 level.
If you want to build a roll, and take poker as a serious venture, use BRM (obv). If you're a rec. and you just love poker for pokers sake, it honestly doesn't matter. So long as you're not gambling more than you're prepared to lose.
You win sir.
(Y)