wish me luck

[Chaserjim 0]

After months of thinking about it hard , Ive finally decided to set aside a certain amount of money and label it "my bankroll". Starting with 500.00 , im ready to make a serious run at a B&M. Ever since watching the Varkoni WSOP, Ive dedicated myself to reading every book imaginable, making trips tp vegas to play in low buy in tournaments, and crushing my home games on a consistent basis. Yes, I have played in casinos before and done well, and finished 3 spots out of the money at one of the 4 queens tournaments last september, but now Im ready to focus and take it serious. The only problem Im running into is where I live, Denver, they only have limit tables here. Looks like Im going to have to start the 2-4 limit No foldem Holdem tables, which is really annoying, but I know I can do it. On a side note, id Like to say thanks for everyone posting information on this site, its been one of the best forums Ive ever been on, so as a tribute I went out to a local tee-shirt graphics store and ordered a "Full Contact Poker " tee-shirt. Wish me luck fellas !P.S. I was a chess player prior and some of the books I read about chess were really like calculus books, and then some of the newer authors did some translations into more modern and easily readable sentences. Anyone know if an author ever tried to put some of sklanksys books into more "simpler" terms?

[BilliardsBoy 0]

Good luck skip. I too have put money into a site and set it as my bankroll. I can't afford to develope a bad habit and pour money into online gambling. My view is that if I win, then great, let it roll. If I lose, then I suck at life and that's the end of that. Right now though, I'm doing well playing Omaha, either flavor. Lots of holdem players who think that a pair in the hand in holdem is golden.So good luck to you too fellow poker player. Send me a T-shirt while you're at it.

[gadjet 11]

You should've saved your T-shirt money and added it to your bankroll... cause you're a little short for the 2/4 for crapshoot you will be playing... but good luck...

[justblaze 0]

You should've saved your T-shirt money and added it to your bankroll... cause you're a little short for the 2/4 for crapshoot you will be playing... but good luck...

yea like 700 short lol.

[Chaserjim 0]

You should've saved your T-shirt money and added it to your bankroll... cause you're a little short for the 2/4 for crapshoot you will be playing... but good luck...

You dont think 500.00$ is enough for a 2/4 limit holdem game?

[rkkkkjj 0]

clickity CLACK!!

[justblaze 0]

You should've saved your T-shirt money and added it to your bankroll... cause you're a little short for the 2/4 for crapshoot you will be playing... but good luck...

You dont think 500.00$ is enough for a 2/4 limit holdem game?

its not. you need 1200.

[allinbluff35 0]

You should've saved your T-shirt money and added it to your bankroll... cause you're a little short for the 2/4 for crapshoot you will be playing... but good luck...

Parade . . . . . Rain

[bigkg 0]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

[gadjet 11]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

[justblaze 0]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

it depends whether you want to look at it from a theoretical or practical point of view. the idea of 300BB is derived from the theory of gamblers ruin. here is a simplified version: say you had $10,000, and i had infinitely more than that. Say, further, that i were to offer to cut cards with you. higher than a 7, you win, and lower than a 7, i win. now say i were to remove the 2s 3s and 4s from the deck, and still offer you this proposition at even money. you would be a fool not to take it. However, if i made a stipulation that each bet must be $6000 and you could not reload if you went broke, you would be a fool to bet me. Mathematically, the probability of you having any money after 20 or so cuts is something like 3%. despite the incredible odds i offer you, you dont have enough bets to withstand normal variance. How does this relate to poker? it's simple. If you assume you are playing profitable poker, which means you are getting your money in when the math makes it profitable to do so, you are essentially flipping coins that are 60% likely or 70% likely to fall in your favour. 300BB has been generally accepted as money for enough 'cointosses' that you could withstand normal variance without going broke. i.e. if you lose more than this you can assume it is not due to variance (what some people call 'luck') but rather due to a problem with your strategy or approach to the game. Practically speaking, on the other hand, you are right. In your example, both players have 700 after a session or two. If you believe in the mathematical principles behind poker, though, you will realize that either player 1 is on a downswing in his variance progression and if he continues to play strategically sound poker he will overcome this variance. The point is that losing 500$ in a 2-4 game could easily be attributed to luck, while losing $1200 is more likely a sign of poor play. In order to really understand how you stack up against the competition, you should be prepared to lose 300BB.

[Mister Hand 0]

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

Yes, it matters. A really simple example should suffice. Two players, one with $1200, the other with $700, have a $700 downswing. The player who started with $1200 can keep playing.Or to look on the positive side: If both players start with an upswing, the player who started with $1200 will be able to move up in stakes faster than the shorter bankroll player.It's not impossible to play on a "short" bankroll. You're just increasing your chances of going broke. If you're willing to accept that risk, then that's fine. Depending on how tight/loose and passive/aggressive the game tends to be, I would suggest playing slightly tighter than you normally would with a larger bankroll. There are hands that have a marginal + EV, but will also increase your bankroll fluctuations. In other words, try not to push too hard on hands where you think you only have a small edge. Good luck to you.

[pokerloser 0]

$500 will be fine for 2/4 if you are half the player you say you are, the real problem is your playing 2/4, you can grind for 12 hours and make a hundred at best, big deal. Everyone will chase you to the end on draws, You will flop a straight, they flop 2 pair, call every bet you put out there, and catch their full house on the river. If you lose $500, (god forbid $1200) at 2/4, you should find another hobby.Good Luck!

[pokerloser 0]

$500 will be fine for 2/4 if you are half the player you say you are, the real problem is your playing 2/4, you can grind for 12 hours and make a hundred at best, big deal. Everyone will chase you to the end on draws, You will flop a straight, they flop 2 pair, call every bet you put out there, and catch their full house on the river. If you lose $500, (god forbid $1200) at 2/4, you should find another hobby.Good Luck!

[pokerloser 0]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, for all you geniuses out there saying 300x the BB. and saying he needs 1200. In 2/4 the BB is $2. 300x2=600 so he is not that far off with 500. Hello!

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, for all you geniuses out there saying 300x the BB.  and saying he needs 1200.  In 2/4 the BB is $2.  300x2=600  so he is not that far off with 500.  Hello!

BB in a limit game is referring to big bets, not big blinds. $4 is the big bet. $4 x 300 = $1200. Know what's going on before you start critisizing others. Hello!

[GATOR77 0]

I live in Arvada. If you are interested in tourney play try Colorado Central Station. They have tournaments Monday- Friday at 1:00 and 7:oo. The 1:00 is a $10 entry with unlimited $10 rebuy the first hour and one $20 add on. The 7:00 game buy in varies from $30 to $110 depending on the day of the week. The games here in Colorado are $2-$5 and $5-$5. It is usually no fold-em hold-em. No respect & bad play common. I'm headed up there next Wednesday. Also look at the Denver Poker Forum web site for local games.GATOR77

[gadjet 11]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, for all you geniuses out there saying 300x the BB.  and saying he needs 1200.  In 2/4 the BB is $2.  300x2=600  so he is not that far off with 500.  Hello!

Ha! The irony is in the name of the poster...

[Swift_Psycho 1]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, for all you geniuses out there saying 300x the BB.  and saying he needs 1200.  In 2/4 the BB is $2.  300x2=600  so he is not that far off with 500.  Hello!

Ha! The irony is in the name of the poster...

Ain't that the truth. And this is where a lot of posters try to save themselves with some lame excuse like, "Man, I was just kidding. You guys are so gullible."

[gadjet 11]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

it depends whether you want to look at it from a theoretical or practical point of view. the idea of 300BB is derived from the theory of gamblers ruin. here is a simplified version: say you had $10,000, and i had infinitely more than that. Say, further, that i were to offer to cut cards with you. higher than a 7, you win, and lower than a 7, i win. now say i were to remove the 2s 3s and 4s from the deck, and still offer you this proposition at even money. you would be a fool not to take it. However, if i made a stipulation that each bet must be $6000 and you could not reload if you went broke, you would be a fool to bet me. Mathematically, the probability of you having any money after 20 or so cuts is something like 3%. despite the incredible odds i offer you, you dont have enough bets to withstand normal variance. How does this relate to poker? it's simple. If you assume you are playing profitable poker, which means you are getting your money in when the math makes it profitable to do so, you are essentially flipping coins that are 60% likely or 70% likely to fall in your favour. 300BB has been generally accepted as money for enough 'cointosses' that you could withstand normal variance without going broke. i.e. if you lose more than this you can assume it is not due to variance (what some people call 'luck') but rather due to a problem with your strategy or approach to the game. Practically speaking, on the other hand, you are right. In your example, both players have 700 after a session or two. If you believe in the mathematical principles behind poker, though, you will realize that either player 1 is on a downswing in his variance progression and if he continues to play strategically sound poker he will overcome this variance. The point is that losing 500$ in a 2-4 game could easily be attributed to luck, while losing $1200 is more likely a sign of poor play. In order to really understand how you stack up against the competition, you should be prepared to lose 300BB.

Thanks for this, it was informative… But I'll try to explain my point with an example… Player A Bankroll of $500Player B Bankroll of $1000each betting independantly on either heads or tails. (I.e. they both can win or lose not one against the other…)After 500 flips:Player A has won $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Player B has lost $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Now from this point on, their odds to win are still 50/50 each and in my mind they have the same bankroll… it's not like Player B is now more due for a certain up swing... do you see why I'm having difficulty getting this?

[Swift_Psycho 1]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

it depends whether you want to look at it from a theoretical or practical point of view. the idea of 300BB is derived from the theory of gamblers ruin. here is a simplified version: say you had $10,000, and i had infinitely more than that. Say, further, that i were to offer to cut cards with you. higher than a 7, you win, and lower than a 7, i win. now say i were to remove the 2s 3s and 4s from the deck, and still offer you this proposition at even money. you would be a fool not to take it. However, if i made a stipulation that each bet must be $6000 and you could not reload if you went broke, you would be a fool to bet me. Mathematically, the probability of you having any money after 20 or so cuts is something like 3%. despite the incredible odds i offer you, you dont have enough bets to withstand normal variance. How does this relate to poker? it's simple. If you assume you are playing profitable poker, which means you are getting your money in when the math makes it profitable to do so, you are essentially flipping coins that are 60% likely or 70% likely to fall in your favour. 300BB has been generally accepted as money for enough 'cointosses' that you could withstand normal variance without going broke. i.e. if you lose more than this you can assume it is not due to variance (what some people call 'luck') but rather due to a problem with your strategy or approach to the game. Practically speaking, on the other hand, you are right. In your example, both players have 700 after a session or two. If you believe in the mathematical principles behind poker, though, you will realize that either player 1 is on a downswing in his variance progression and if he continues to play strategically sound poker he will overcome this variance. The point is that losing 500$ in a 2-4 game could easily be attributed to luck, while losing $1200 is more likely a sign of poor play. In order to really understand how you stack up against the competition, you should be prepared to lose 300BB.

Thanks for this, it was informative… But I'll try to explain my point with an example… Player A Bankroll of $500Player B Bankroll of $1000each betting independantly on either heads or tails. (I.e. they both can win or lose not one against the other…)After 500 flips:Player A has won $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Player B has lost $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Now from this point on, their odds to win are still 50/50 each and in my mind they have the same bankroll… it's not like Player B is now more due for a certain up swing... do you see why I'm having difficulty getting this?

I can see why you have trouble getting justblaze's point. However, if you start with a short roll, you cannot withstand a bad luck streak. You have to bank on having good luck or at least even luck (something that is uncertain on any given night). With a proper roll, you can withstand a bad luck streak. And if you lose your short roll, you cannot say with certainty that it was due to bad luck or poor play. It could be either. If you lose 300x the BB though, there is no more uncertainty. You would know that you need to improve your game.

[justblaze 0]

They say u need 300x the Big Bet in order to endure the swings of playing at that limit, so in ur case u need at least 1200 dollars set aside as your bankroll.

I agree but on the other hand, I've never really understood this... because really it depends how you start doesn't it? if you start with 1200 and have a $500 downswing you'll be at $700 while at the same time someone could start with $500 and have a $200 upswing... you guys wouyld both be sitting on the exact same amount... so does starting bankroll really matter past your first few sessions?

it depends whether you want to look at it from a theoretical or practical point of view. the idea of 300BB is derived from the theory of gamblers ruin. here is a simplified version: say you had $10,000, and i had infinitely more than that. Say, further, that i were to offer to cut cards with you. higher than a 7, you win, and lower than a 7, i win. now say i were to remove the 2s 3s and 4s from the deck, and still offer you this proposition at even money. you would be a fool not to take it. However, if i made a stipulation that each bet must be $6000 and you could not reload if you went broke, you would be a fool to bet me. Mathematically, the probability of you having any money after 20 or so cuts is something like 3%. despite the incredible odds i offer you, you dont have enough bets to withstand normal variance. How does this relate to poker? it's simple. If you assume you are playing profitable poker, which means you are getting your money in when the math makes it profitable to do so, you are essentially flipping coins that are 60% likely or 70% likely to fall in your favour. 300BB has been generally accepted as money for enough 'cointosses' that you could withstand normal variance without going broke. i.e. if you lose more than this you can assume it is not due to variance (what some people call 'luck') but rather due to a problem with your strategy or approach to the game. Practically speaking, on the other hand, you are right. In your example, both players have 700 after a session or two. If you believe in the mathematical principles behind poker, though, you will realize that either player 1 is on a downswing in his variance progression and if he continues to play strategically sound poker he will overcome this variance. The point is that losing 500$ in a 2-4 game could easily be attributed to luck, while losing $1200 is more likely a sign of poor play. In order to really understand how you stack up against the competition, you should be prepared to lose 300BB.

Thanks for this, it was informative… But I'll try to explain my point with an example… Player A Bankroll of $500Player B Bankroll of $1000each betting independantly on either heads or tails. (I.e. they both can win or lose not one against the other…)After 500 flips:Player A has won $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Player B has lost $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Now from this point on, their odds to win are still 50/50 each and in my mind they have the same bankroll… it's not like Player B is now more due for a certain up swing... do you see why I'm having difficulty getting this?

yea its all purely theoretical so we can debate back and forth all day without one convincing the other. but in terms of your example, look at it this way: what is the probability of heads coming up 375 times in a 500 flip sample set? probably not so good. in the short term flipping coins is all about luck. so is poker. if you look at each flip individually its all luck, and in poker if you look at each hand individually it boils down to luck. But the larger your sample set, the more likely the results are to converge upon the mean of your deviation curve. If you flipped coins 10000 times each the probability that there would be a significant winner and a significant loser is quite low. 100,000 times, even lower. Its still possible, but as the sample set grows it becomes less and less likely, until mathematically speaking the likelyhood is close enough to zero that it is considered to be zero. So it is with poker. If you exploit enough 60-40 edges, the probability that you will win 60% of the time approaches certainty. How many times is enough is a whole different story altogether. the 300bb rule is definitely does not allow for nearly enough trials to assure success, but is enough to create a reasonable likelyhood that you wont be terribly far off from the mathematically probable outcome of your play.

[Fooney 0]

If you take the 300xBB concept one step further you also have to have some sort of stop gap number such as 250xBB or 200xBB where you go down a limit to rebuild your stack. If you add that component you are pretty much gauranteed to never be threatened by variance alone. the only way you could lose all your money applying this principal on top of the standard 300xBB rule is if you are a bad card player and you should stop playing if you lose all your money using these rules.In my experience, you are at risk of losing your entire bankroll, even if you're a good card player, if you have a $500 bankroll and the lowest limit available to you is 2/4.I'm a profitable player (note I didn't say a good one) and I've had -$150 swings playing .50/1 which would have bankrupted me if I would have had your relative bankroll at the time.

[Sendachi 0]

<quote>Player A has won $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Player B has lost $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Now from this point on, their odds to win are still 50/50 each and in my mind they have the same bankroll… it's not like Player B is now more due for a certain up swing... do you see why I'm having difficulty getting this?</quote>I get what you're saying. If the short bankroll starts well and the bigger bankroll starts poorly, they'll be at the same place. Where you started from won't make any difference at that point.What people are suggesting is, what if the short bankroll starts poorly? You have a greater chance of busting yourself out. Like someone said though, if you're willing to deal with that then go for it.On the question of game selection: if the only game available is B&M no-foldem, why not just play online? (My personal preference is for no limit - I can't stand limit anymore). You have a large selection of tables and sites. And you can play more tables and hands per hour. I don't mean this to sound critical or judgemental. I just don't understand why anyone would choose B&M no-foldem over Internet play.

[justblaze 0]

<quote>Player A has won $250 giving him a bankroll of  $750.Player B has lost $250 giving him a bankroll of $750.Now from this point on, their odds to win are still 50/50 each and in my mind they have the same bankroll… it's not like Player B is now more due for a certain up swing... do you see why I'm having difficulty getting this?</quote>I get what you're saying.  If the short bankroll starts well and the bigger bankroll starts poorly, they'll be at the same place.  Where you started from won't make any difference at that point.What people are suggesting is, what if the short bankroll starts poorly?  You have a greater chance of busting yourself out.  Like someone said though, if you're willing to deal with that then go for it.On the question of game selection: if the only game available is B&M no-foldem, why not just play online?  (My personal preference is for no limit - I can't stand limit anymore).  You have a large selection of tables and sites.  And you can play more tables and hands per hour.  I don't mean this to sound critical or judgemental.  I just don't understand why anyone would choose B&M no-foldem over Internet play.

possibly because BM 2-4 is much wilder than online 2-4. or possibly because the hands get dealt slower, so the swings are slower, so bad players think they are losing less when in fact they are just losing it a little slower, or perhaps he has good ability to read physical tells, or perhaps he likes the social aspect of poker. in short, there are a million possible reasons.