Nl Buy Ins

[Roberts2003 0]

I know that the standard rule is 20 buy ins. but especially for SH and HU, does anyone agree that you need at least 50 buy ins, if not more?? i guess it also depends on peoples feelings on going broke. for myself, i have built up way way too much to ever risk a large portion of my roll in a game. right now, i am currently playing a limit that i have 90 buy ins with, and it feels great not to worry about losing 1 buy in.

[Zach6668 513]

It's all about comfort.SH and HU are very volatile, so you should be prepared for a 5 buyin downswings pretty regularly, I think. (No experience, mind you).For LHE, there's a Risk Of Ruin calculation which states the XXX BBs for full ring will result in an X% chance of ever going broke, without moving down, etc.I don't know if such a thing exists for NL. It's probably possible, but I haven't seen it.Anyways, the bigger roll you have, the smaller chance you have of going broke if you're a winning player; we're talking like < 1% chance.Also, if you chose to keep a smaller roll, then you have to be prepared to move down quite frequently, etc.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I know that the standard rule is 20 buy ins. but especially for SH and HU, does anyone agree that you need at least 50 buy ins, if not more?? i guess it also depends on peoples feelings on going broke. for myself, i have built up way way too much to ever risk a large portion of my roll in a game. right now, i am currently playing a limit that i have 90 buy ins with, and it feels great not to worry about losing 1 buy in.

to be honest, i used to think i needed XXX amount of buy-ins. But in reality, its just about your life and what you need financially if a time comes.when i play, i go into the day expecting to win. but i also know i could lose a few big hands. With that in mind, i'm prepared to lose a few buy-ins here and there. Do I ever think i could lose 20 buy-ins? No, i'm not that type of player, and even if my cards ran so bad or cold, i still cant see myself going through buy-in after buy0in day after day.if thats the case, i dont blame the cards, i blame myself.So, if you feel that you can afford to lose for a full month and not record any profit at all and still have a solid roll that you will try again the very next month, then IMO thats good enough.

[GaYeled 0]

i agree. I have almost 100 buyins for the limit that I'm playing.i play SH and HU 400NL

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

My standard BR is 450BB for limit, 45 for a sit n go, 25 buyins for NL, and 100 for a MTT. I haven't gone broke in a while, and it seems to work.

[pokerplayer24 0]

Matters whether or not you crush the game. At 2/4 ive never had more then a 10 buyin downswing and I tend to kill it so i'd be able to get away with like 25 buyins. While at a tougher game like 5/10 id imagine I would want at least 40.

[Frez 0]

It's all about comfort.For LHE, there's a Risk Of Ruin calculation which states the XXX BBs for full ring will result in an X% chance of ever going broke, without moving down, etc.

I don't get this. The way it reads, it says with 222 BBs in your bank roll you have a 2% chance of going broke, and with 888 BBs you have an 8% chance of going broke???

[Actuary 3]

I don't get this. The way it reads, it says with 222 BBs in your bank roll you have a 2% chance of going broke, and with 888 BBs you have an 8% chance of going broke???

where you getting that?

[qyayqi 11]

where you getting that?

heh, he misunderstood the X. note he used X=2, so 222 and 2%, then X=8, 888 and 8%.frez, it should for clarity have read:For LHE, there's a Risk Of Ruin calculation which states the X BBs for full ring will result in an Y% chance of ever going broke (as X increases, Y decreases), without moving down, etc.

[Actuary 3]

oh..he was taking it literally..I see

[Royal_Tour 0]

heh, he misunderstood the X. note he used X=2, so 222 and 2%, then X=8, 888 and 8%.frez, it should for clarity have read:For LHE, there's a Risk Of Ruin calculation which states the X BBs for full ring will result in an Y% chance of ever going broke (as X increases, Y decreases), without moving down, etc.

really? this was really necessary?i understood exactly what zach meant.

[Frez 0]

heh, he misunderstood the X. note he used X=2, so 222 and 2%, then X=8, 888 and 8%.frez, it should for clarity have read:For LHE, there's a Risk Of Ruin calculation which states the X BBs for full ring will result in an Y% chance of ever going broke (as X increases, Y decreases), without moving down, etc.

OK, of course that makes more sense.I'm a math guy, and X=X where I studied, so of course I was taking it literally. It didn't make sense, so I asked. No harm in that?I'm thinking the prior post was unnecessary...

[Verdimme 0]

It's really a function of the games/styles you are playing in. I don't think there is a set rule. Like others said, it also has alot to do with your comfort level. I'm a bankroll nit and want to have atleast 50 buyins so dropping a few doesn't affect me emotionally like it would if I only had 25.

[Roberts2003 0]

wow forget what i said earlier. part of the reason i was still stuck at 2 4 NL was because i didnt think i could stomach losing more then 400 on a single hand. well after hitting a 2nd huge downswing in the last week and losing 3.5K, i decided to move up to 5 10 NL. now this might seem dumb, but i am technically rolled for it since i had 31K when i did this, and i was not steaming. so basically the point of what i am trying to say is that emotions and personal comfort play a big part in how much you are willing to risk. Even with my downswing over and me being back over 35K, i am still going to play 5 10 NL now, and some 3 6 NL. So in a really wierd way, this downswing was good for me. It made me sack up and move up in limits. Anyone else have any experiences like this?

[Jordan 1]

wow forget what i said earlier. part of the reason i was still stuck at 2 4 NL was because i didnt think i could stomach losing more then 400 on a single hand. well after hitting a 2nd huge downswing in the last week and losing 3.5K, i decided to move up to 5 10 NL. now this might seem dumb, but i am technically rolled for it since i had 31K when i did this, and i was not steaming. so basically the point of what i am trying to say is that emotions and personal comfort play a big part in how much you are willing to risk. Even with my downswing over and me being back over 35K, i am still going to play 5 10 NL now, and some 3 6 NL. So in a really wierd way, this downswing was good for me. It made me sack up and move up in limits. Anyone else have any experiences like this?

jumping limits to get back losses is common.when i went on my 11k downswing, about 4k of that was from doing what you did, and running bad.i really think you should go up limits when you are running well, not running poorly and trying to make it back quicker.youre being results based. the "downswing" was "good" for you cause you won a few buy-ins back at 1k nl and thus recounted your losses quicker. Had you of lost, your attitude would be completely different. You're a poker player, you should know better than letting your emotions change day by day based off a "downswing" or a few good sessions.take that fwiw.gl- Jordan

[Roberts2003 0]

i understand what your saying jordan, that might have come across as result based. but what i really mean is that i had already been thinking about moving up in limits since i am rolled for it even before the downswing. the downswing made me act upon it. i did initially lose at 5 10 too, its not like i went up and quickly made back 4K. i played over 20 hours this past weekend at 5 10 NL 2 tabling. So i dont think it was anything that rash.