Bankroll

LARSON7

It's been discussed a lot on here and elsewhere.

Question is, how do you personally view bankroll? And BI's for the games you play?

I've always worked of a 50bi rule, and most would say have been really nitty with bankroll management!

Does anyone play well under this in their games?

Or is anyone well over 50 bi's?

What about the higher you go, would you say that more bi's are required? Instead of 50, maybe 75 or 100 buyins?

benc

I like to keep 100bi for stakes i play now i'm at hypers, although take a fair few shots at the level above knowing i comfortably have 50bi.

jimb0d1

The more buy ins the better. 

At times I have been playing a very small roll and every loss hurt a little bit more and lowered my confidence. Bigger bankroll -> more confidence -> better play -> bigger bankroll

Slipwater

Maybe this is a silly question, but can you have too many buy-ins?

What I mean is: does there have to be some kind of risk factor for the stakes you are playing to be relevant? If you have a million pounds and sit down to play 4nl, you have 250,000 buy-ins, and you won't give a monkeys about losing a few thousand. So, does the number have to be high enough to cover potential downswings, but low enough to make losing important?

Lambert180

I don't think you can ever have too many BIs to be honest. Depends what you want from the game like...

If you have a million quid sitting round but you wanna just play poker 100% for fun and you get as much fun from playing 4NL as you do from playing 100NL, then it doesn't matter.

Even if you play for a living you can't really have too much imo. If you can comfortably win a steady £2-3k per month playing 200NL and that's plenty of money for you and you have no hunger to play higher/win more, then it doesn't matter if your roll is £50,000 or £250,000.

You only need minimum requirements imo not maximum, and if you really don't care about going bust, you don't need anything

To OP, it depends what game you got 50 BIs for... if it's cash and you're a good player then that's probably fine, and yeah I would recommend increasing it from 50 BIs as you move up higher and higher in stakes. 

If it's 50 BIs for MTTs, then that's probably ok.... ish. It's a little on the risky side but again if you don't mind going bust or having to move down and rebuild then it's fine.

You can't be too nitty with BRM rules imo unless you want to move up stakes. If you wanna move up stakes then obv you can/still should be a bit nitty but if you're gonna play 10NL with £500 and not move up to 20NL until you've got 200 BIs or something crazy then you're gonna be there a LONG time.

LARSON7

Slipwater put all his bankroll on a sat and binked a UKPC seat, how luck is he?:)

gerardirl

Dont think bankroll really matters provided your playing at a level your comfortable with. Probably more to do with your disposal income imo. I stick my 3 pound games no matter what my bankroll.

Ger

FlyingDagg

I think it's very much a personal thing. At the moment mine stands at around 40/50 buy ins for the stakes I play. That feels comfortable for me as I'm quite modest with my buy ins. As you know Kev it's been MUCH less than that recently and I really felt the pressure to cash. Knowing that you can build a bigger roll surely gives you more confidence in your game so for me the bigger the better.

shakinaces

In Response to Re: Bankroll:

.... but if you're gonna play 10NL with £500 and not move up to 20NL until you've got 200 BIs or something crazy then you're gonna be there a LONG time.
Posted by Lambert180

I suppose this is a query in itself, where is the biting point to start moving up to the next level.

Assuming that most players that are thinking this much about their cash are going to be playing 4 or more tables, would a recommendation be to slowly evolve towards to NL20 (using the example in your post)

ie if you get to, say 60BI for NL10 you start to play 4x NL10, 1x NL20 - step back to 5x NL10 if you have a mare.

Then as you approach a £1k bankroll (ie 50bi for NL20) you steadily shift in more NL20 tables... so at £700 you are 3x NL10 / 2x NL20 etc

You're right, getting to 100BI for the level you're at (ie 50BI for next level up) does seem like a bit of a drag unless you hit one hell of a heater / are just ridic good at the level you are at.

jordz16

Id never play anything i dont have 100 buy ins for and i think if you are serious about moving up levels with no risk then anything less is gambling. If you are just playing for fun then I would say you can drop that to 50 and if you are very recreational and happy to top up then 10-20 is fine

Wilhelm

In Response to Bankroll:

It's been discussed a lot on here and elsewhere. Question is, how do you personally view bankroll? And BI's for the games you play? I've always worked of a 50bi rule, and most would say have been really nitty with bankroll management! Does anyone play well under this in their games? Or is anyone well over 50 bi's? What about the higher you go, would you say that more bi's are required? Instead of 50, maybe 75 or 100 buyins?
Posted by LARSON7

50bi is in no way nitty.  I have 300 bi for the biggest game I regularly play and 3000 for the smallest.  It's whatever you need to feel completely comfortable to play.

liamboi11

hey m8 i`m mostly cash game player as u know imo if taking it more serious I like to have 50+ bi`s if playin a regular level and you know you are winning at that level.

but if you fancy taking shots there is nothing wrong setting aside a certain amount and see how u get on if you lose you go back to regular level if win then up to urself if want to continue or use the funds for something else.

end of the day just depends what you really want out poker the more serious and want move up levels more bi`s required imo but if play for fun and willing to gamble and lose do whatever makes you happy