my problem with bankroll management

[john kane 0]

right, i understand the reasoning why one has to have a bankroll in somewhere in the region of 300BB for limit poker.but why do people suggest you need one for NL?personally, 4 buy ins is the most you should ever need. i believe i have read somebody say here that you need a bigger bankroll to handle the bigger variance on NL, or that you need, as just now in a post, 10 buy ins.has anyone ever been so bad as to lose 10 buy ins???personally, i play the short handed cash games with $200 ($2-$4NL) and im up $9000 (i.e. 45 buy ins) over the course of the last 5 or 6 months and my worst ever run has been dropping down 3 buy ins. id like to considering myself an aggressive player when the opponents are tight and vice versa.so what do those who play NL consider as there bankroll.ps. i can see why when i play 3 table short handed limit you need the bankroll, i recently had a 110BB downswing which sucked.

[PrtyPSux 0]

dude no matter how good you are you cant avoid getting your set outdrawn by a flush chaser 4 times in a row. U need 15 to 20 buyins maybe even 25 if your playing shorthanded, Id probably need something like 35 to 40 beause im a maniac so my fluctuations would be pretty dramatic. This is all to avoid ruin, it doesnt mean you need it.

[mkeller3086 0]

I started to see a trend with some of Sklansky's books. I haven't seen them all but I'd like to find out. On the cover of his books, there always seems to be some incorporation of 8-3. Take a look. Hold em poker for advanced players they are the hole cards on the cover and in tournament poker for advance players the flop is 883. I know I've seen it somewhere else too. I find it to be weird, maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Does anyone have a clue, does he have some sort of sentiment towards 8-3 that I'm not aware of?

[Vade 0]

I started to see a trend with some of Sklansky's books. I haven't seen them all but I'd like to find out. On the cover of his books, there always seems to be some incorporation of 8-3. Take a look. Hold em poker for advanced players they are the hole cards on the cover and in tournament poker for advance players the flop is 883. I know I've seen it somewhere else too. I find it to be weird, maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Does anyone have a clue, does he have some sort of sentiment towards 8-3 that I'm not aware of?

Odd...SSHE has no mention of this

[Vade 0]

right, i understand the reasoning why one has to have a bankroll in somewhere in the region of 300BB for limit poker.but why do people suggest you need one for NL?personally, 4 buy ins is the most you should ever need. i believe i have read somebody say here that you need a bigger bankroll to handle the bigger variance on NL, or that you need, as just now in a post, 10 buy ins.has anyone ever been so bad as to lose 10 buy ins???personally, i play the short handed cash games with $200 ($2-$4NL) and im up $9000 (i.e. 45 buy ins) over the course of the last 5 or 6 months and my worst ever run has been dropping down 3 buy ins. id like to considering myself an aggressive player when the opponents are tight and vice versa.so what do those who play NL consider as there bankroll.ps. i can see why when i play 3 table short handed limit you need the bankroll, i recently had a 110BB downswing which sucked.

I've lost 6 buyins over three daysI'm still at 10 dollar buyins because I'm poorWhen I get to 400, I'll move up-probably be going to limit after I get this damn FT bonus the other half (1/2 way since the first of March isn't too bad, but damn it's tough to clear)

[john kane 0]

dude no matter how good you are you cant avoid getting your set outdrawn by a flush chaser 4 times in a row.

its been absolutely ages since ive had an all in vs someone who has a flush draw on the flop/turn. this may happen on the lower limits, but its very rare i find at 2-4NL.how does such a scenario happen? the guy with the flush draw either semi bluffs the flop with position on you, and you flat call expecting to check raise on the turn (or least thats the way id most likely play it), or if he doesnt have position then he surely check-calls.i never have all my chips in the middle unless a) i have the nuts by the river vs a tight player. or B) i have have near nuts vs a loose player.other than that ill try to constantly watch which players i can bluff against and which are bad enough they will call me with crap unless i make a massive overbet (and so isnt worth me trying to steal ie i play tight vs them).the major problem with lower NL buyins is that: can imagine at say the 25NL sit downs you will get players who are playing effectively at too lower limit for the amount they are wanting to win and so the concept of trying to steal a pot on the flop when the other two players have checked isnt really worth it (as they will win a pityful amount). instead these players are looking to win effectively way too big for the limits they are playing at, and so will try to push in far too often, and be making bets/raises which at higher limits would be viewed as massive overbets/raises.just some thoughts

[Landon_McFly 0]

its been absolutely ages since ive had an all in vs someone who has a flush draw on the flop/turn. this may happen on the lower limits, but its very rare i find at 2-4NL.how does such a scenario happen? the guy with the flush draw either semi bluffs the flop with position on you, and you flat call expecting to check raise on the turn (or least thats the way id most likely play it), or if he doesnt have position then he surely check-calls.i never have all my chips in the middle unless a) i have the nuts by the river vs a tight player. or B) i have have near nuts vs a loose player.other than that ill try to constantly watch which players i can bluff against and which are bad enough they will call me with crap unless i make a massive overbet (and so isnt worth me trying to steal ie i play tight vs them).the major problem with lower NL buyins is that: can imagine at say the 25NL sit downs you will get players who are playing effectively at too lower limit for the amount they are wanting to win and so the concept of trying to steal a pot on the flop when the other two players have checked isnt really worth it (as they will win a pityful amount). instead these players are looking to win effectively way too big for the limits they are playing at, and so will try to push in far too often, and be making bets/raises which at higher limits would be viewed as massive overbets/raises.just some thoughtsThats the realist $#it he ever said

[CrazyJoe 0]

well, couple of weeks ago i lost 3 buyins in one day gettin moved in on when i had AA and getting drawn out on. I hate getting all my money in preflop, but when someone moves in on you and you have AA, what are you gonna do? just happened i lost 3 times in a day, there went $600

[custom36 5]

I started to see a trend with some of Sklansky's books. I haven't seen them all but I'd like to find out. On the cover of his books, there always seems to be some incorporation of 8-3. Take a look. Hold em poker for advanced players they are the hole cards on the cover and in tournament poker for advance players the flop is 883. I know I've seen it somewhere else too. I find it to be weird, maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Does anyone have a clue, does he have some sort of sentiment towards 8-3 that I'm not aware of?

Odd...SSHE has no mention of this

On the cover of his Tournament Poker for Advanced Players book, the flop is 8-3-3. Very odd indeed.

[john kane 0]

Thats the realist $#it he ever said

im overwhelmed by the complexity of that counter argument.

well, couple of weeks ago i lost 3 buyins in one day gettin moved in on when i had AA and getting drawn out on. I hate getting all my money in preflop, but when someone moves in on you and you have AA, what are you gonna do? just happened i lost 3 times in a day, there went $600

im assuming this wasnt short handed? thats just very very unluckyn and im assuming its pretty rare (ie on say one in every 80 sessions will you be all in preflop 3 times with AA and lose them all). play short handed i suggest. and if that happens 3 times in a day (ie you should of played roughly 500 to 800 hands what with AA 220-1 odds) then id hope that in the rest of the day you had outplayed some players and won some hands, so overall you werent down 3 buyins.

[outburst04 0]

mkeller3086 wrote: I started to see a trend with some of Sklansky's books. I haven't seen them all but I'd like to find out. On the cover of his books, there always seems to be some incorporation of 8-3. Take a look. Hold em poker for advanced players they are the hole cards on the cover and in tournament poker for advance players the flop is 883. I know I've seen it somewhere else too. I find it to be weird, maybe I just have too much time on my hands. Does anyone have a clue, does he have some sort of sentiment towards 8-3 that I'm not aware of? On the cover of Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players the hand shown on the right side has 3's full of 8's.

[DKE_XP120 0]

I beleive you should have 1500 bb.....Not positive on that, but pretty sure

[Dixie Wrecked 0]

I have a similar problem with bankroll management. When following the guidelines, I find it hard to play for pocket change i.e. playing 4 hours to make $10. In fact playing micro limits makes the money immaterial to me and I end up playing loose aggressive and making -EV bad calls. My bankroll hasnt gotten anywhere, it just bounces up and down around my original amount.But, when I play out of my bankroll like the in the past couple of months that I have gone to the local casino and sat down at 4/8 limit with $100 or 6/12 limit with $200, I play tight aggressive and am up $987 to show for it. Unfortunately, having the cash in my pocket, I have spent it on a couple of ski weekends and a new dryer. I know that playing out of my bankroll "isnt smart" and that some will say that "I will be broke in a couple of months" but I just play a lot better when the money is material to me and to me playing better justifies playing out my bankroll. does anyone else have similar feelings?

[Socrates 0]

personally, 4 buy ins is the most you should ever need

So you're saying that is you were playing $100 1/2NL buy-in cash games you should only need a $400 bankroll. Wow, that would be one short poker career. I'm thinking around 1200-1500bb would be sufficient.

[john kane 0]

So you're saying that is you were playing $100 1/2NL buy-in cash games you should only need a $400 bankroll.

correct, on short handed tables. far more skill to short handed, far less playing the cards and far more on playing the opponent, this is becuase you can get reads on your opponents in a much faster time, and you can make far more steals at small pots which is a crucial element to the game imo.far too many players i see get 'married' to their hands. almost as if they know the river has given them a bad beat but still call a big bet almost so they can see the opponents cards, show theirs to the table, and feel that the did no wrong and it was merely a bad beat. its crucial never to put in a lot of money when if your not sure if its right to call. only make the big calls when you know your opponent is capable of making big bets to bluff or when you have a sufficently decent hand. and make as many steals on the flop vs the players you know you can cheaply steal off.yes, you will sometimes be sitting there for an hour or two without any improvement or maybe slighty down even, but you should never be losing 4 buyins. maybe for full ring games, where it is card quality which is more important, but at short handed skill dominates and if your losing 4 buyins in successionl you have to question your play, and not the variance of the cards.maybe when your starting out you should have a bigger bankroll than 4 buyins, but im very comfortable with my online short handed game at $200NL.

[DKE_XP120 0]

Where I come from, shorthanded tables have MORE variance, so you would need a bigger bankroll.... The swings are even greater for the same expected win rate

[PrtyPSux 0]

So you're saying that is you were playing $100 1/2NL buy-in cash games you should only need a $400 bankroll.

correct, on short handed tables. far more skill to short handed, far less playing the cards and far more on playing the opponent, this is becuase you can get reads on your opponents in a much faster time, and you can make far more steals at small pots which is a crucial element to the game imo.far too many players i see get 'married' to their hands. almost as if they know the river has given them a bad beat but still call a big bet almost so they can see the opponents cards, show theirs to the table, and feel that the did no wrong and it was merely a bad beat. its crucial never to put in a lot of money when if your not sure if its right to call. only make the big calls when you know your opponent is capable of making big bets to bluff or when you have a sufficently decent hand. and make as many steals on the flop vs the players you know you can cheaply steal off.yes, you will sometimes be sitting there for an hour or two without any improvement or maybe slighty down even, but you should never be losing 4 buyins. maybe for full ring games, where it is card quality which is more important, but at short handed skill dominates and if your losing 4 buyins in successionl you have to question your play, and not the variance of the cards.maybe when your starting out you should have a bigger bankroll than 4 buyins, but im very comfortable with my online short handed game at $200NL.

I have way bigger swings short handed ... maybe its cuz i raise with almost anything shorthanded and always bet the flop. I can make big laydowns though so I dont lose too much on my bluffs. On the other hand in a ring game a I hardly ever raise, I play a lot tighter and the swings are less..either way having more than 4 x the buy in is necessary if you plan on playing for the long run. Eventually you will get cold cards, bad beats, and make mistakes regardless.

[Socrates 0]

Agreed and I don't know of many that would argue. You are going to see larger swings short handed than you are at a ful table. Keep that theory though and let us know where you are in 6 months.

[john kane 0]

I have way bigger swings short handed ... maybe its cuz i raise with almost anything shorthanded

bingopersonally ill raise preflop for these reasons:a) ive picked up AK and the first two have limped and im on the button or if one has limped and ill want to get the button out.B) ive got 10s,Js,Qs,Ks or As c) and this is by far the most important - ive identified (usually from watching his play when he is vs someone else, that he is willing to call a some mediocre hands preflop to raises 3-4xBB. and then if he does this, he will usually call with weak hands on flop after he's called a raise preflop. so ill then start raises 3xBB with AQ,AJ,QK,JQs,10Js eventhe majoy reason for big variance in short handed is by raising far too much preflop then making the mandatory continuation big bet. so if you do this a few times and miss all the flops, you'll of lost a fair amount.also, position is so incredibly important. ill often lay down my SB hands to a raise even with a pretty sound hand as the hand is so much less profitable out of position.so in general, ill only raise preflop a noticeable amount if i know a player on the table is a calling station and ive got a good read on him.you dont need to lower the number of players very much on shorthanded compared to ring games, and so that takes away one of the major reason for preflop raises.always try to steal on flops. if you see two tight players and flop come 47Q, ill always bet 4 bucks into the 6 buck pot (minus rake) from any of the 3 position, it simply makes mathematical sense. edit: note i will then check it down, i will never then try to bet 10 bucks on the turn after he's called on the flop, another mistake i see way too often.

[Socrates 0]

ill always bet 4 bucks into the 6 buck pot (minus rake) from any of the 3 position, it simply makes mathematical sense. edit: note i will then check it down, i will never then try to bet 10 bucks on the turn after he's called on the flop, another mistake i see way too often.

1. Why would you surrender a pot on the turn (if you're going into this, I'm assuming you only make the flop bet with 14 outs or more?) and 2. if you're going to bet 4 into a 6 dollar pot, why would you only bet 10 into a $14 pot if you did bet on the turn?I don;t think anyone is continually trying to run over you here, we're just trying to see your logic in comparison to decades of poker experience.

[john kane 0]

1. Why would you surrender a pot on the turn (if you're going into this, I'm assuming you only make the flop bet with 14 outs or more?)

id make the flop bet with any 2 cards which havent hit the flop. im playing my opponents cards, the fact i know they are tight on the flop, and if ive made this move a few times and they fold unless they have hit. 4 bucks to win 6 bucks when they will both have a far higher than 40% chance of folding just makes sense. plus it loosens up the my table image a little, i dont want to be seen as a complete rock, although i will never show that i bluffed it.

2. if you're going to bet 4 into a 6 dollar pot, why would you only bet 10 into a $14 pot if you did bet on the turn?

will never then try to bet 10 bucks on the turn after he's called on the flop

firstly just to say i would never make this bet, but i assume your question is referring to why i suggested 10 bucks. this is becuase that would be the amount id bet if i decided to try to bluff the pot. i would be showing that my hand was better than just top pair weak kicker my flop bet may easily of suggested. yes, in theory you are correct that my hand is still showing the same strength 4 bucks into 6, 10 bucks into 14, however i find many online players (especially the tight players) will view the following turn bet as one which has the same implications in terms of size of bet as the flop sized bet i.e. if you still hold top pair then the opponent is expected to bet roughly 6 bucks. so by my tight opponent having called the 4 bucks on the flop, im immediately eithet putting him on a draw or top pair or maybe mid pair good kicker. if he has top pair- not great kicker he is likely to fold to 10 bucks (yes, this may be foolish fold by him, but becuase the 10 buck bet on turn is pretty rare into a 14 buck pot, it shows a greater degree of strength than the 4 buck bet into 6 bucks). if there is a draw on the board then i would have to bet more, but again all depends on who im playing.the reason i dont like these big turn bets is that if you are called on the flop by a tightish player, he has called for a reason. he doesnt play many hands, and he wont want to be forced out by a 10 buck bet. so id have to bet higher, and by betting higher frequently, this not only significantly increases my variance, but so means bluffing in general is harder, as i am know presenting a loose table image.however, having said all this, if i have seen the player call a 4 buck bet on the flop but then fold to a 10 buck bet on the turn, then i may consider it. but in general, im only going bet big when im confident i will win, and small bet a lot on the flop for steals and for feeler bets.i could rant on for ages about what i find are the keys to NL short handed online, as i really feel the huge amount of play i have at the game means i am successful at it.its all about watching you opponents betting patterns, knowing what they wil bet on, what they will fold, whether they are capable of check raising, what sized bets they will fold to, what the will raise with preflop. you can gain this info so much faster than ring games as you will see far more showdowns per unit time.sorry for the long post and i doubt it flows 100%, but i hope its provokes some poker thoughts.

[jayboogie 0]

I have never heard of anyone that thinks there is less variance at a shorthanded game than a full table. I'm not sure how you can possibly say that. With your starting hand requirements, you'd get run over in a shorthanded game. You don't get good cards almost every hand. Your giving up way too many blinds and when you do call, somebody can usually put you on at least an average hand. You sound like your advocating tight play at a shorthanded table, which is the recipe to get run over in a shorthanded game. In a shorthanded game, I attack the tight players and I make them take some shots at gambling and put them out of their comfort zone. Your style sounds so predictable and exploitable that I can't possibly see how it can be successful unless you happen to have great table selection all the time.

[PrtyPSux 0]

"john kane"]

I have way bigger swings short handed ... maybe its cuz i raise with almost anything shorthanded

bingopersonally ill raise preflop for these reasons:a) ive picked up AK and the first two have limped and im on the button or if one has limped and ill want to get the button out.B) ive got 10s,Js,Qs,Ks or As c) and this is by far the most important - ive identified (usually from watching his play when he is vs someone else, that he is willing to call a some mediocre hands preflop to raises 3-4xBB. and then if he does this, he will usually call with weak hands on flop after he's called a raise preflop. so ill then start raises 3xBB with AQ,AJ,QK,JQs,10Js even How could you possibly profit by playing short handed so tight? you're probably only playing 6% of ur hands. you'd get blinded away not only that but if youre opponents are at least a bit observative they wont pay u off when you raise.the majoy reason for big variance in short handed is by raising far too much preflop then making the mandatory continuation big bet. so if you do this a few times and miss all the flops, you'll of lost a fair amount.True, it does cause major fluctuations, but if done right Loose Agressive is probably way more profitable than tight play. When you do make a hand you will get paid off.also, position is so incredibly important. ill often lay down my SB hands to a raise even with a pretty sound hand as the hand is so much less profitable out of position.so in general, ill only raise preflop a noticeable amount if i know a player on the table is a calling station and ive got a good read on him.you dont need to lower the number of players very much on shorthanded compared to ring games, and so that takes away one of the major reason for preflop raises. You dont raise to thin the field most of the time you raise to add value to your hands, if u make a habit of limping in, not only will you get raised more often ( calling a raise w/ AJ is not a smart thing, while raising is profitable) you will also lose value on hands that should be raised short handed.always try to steal on flops. If you are the preflop raiser, or if you are almost certain the other player/s missed yes.if you see two tight players and flop come 47Q, ill always bet 4 bucks into the 6 buck pot (minus rake) from any of the 3 positionas long as the guidelines above are met then yes, betting with position makes the read you get way easier, therefore I will seldom try to steal that flop from early position if I didnt raise it preflop., it simply makes mathematical sense. edit: note i will then check it down, i will never then try to bet 10 bucks on the turn after he's called on the flop, another mistake i see way too often.If Im drawing and you do this I will most likely bet (unless a free card will help me a lot). by checking the turn your showing weakness a good player will usually pounce on it, (thus the reason I wouldn't raise on the flop out of position unless I was the preflop raiser.) I dunno man but your short handed strategy IMO is waay off, and you should be playing ring games. Again this is my own opinion, playing like a maniac (very loose agressive) works for me (as long as I refrain from tilting (which i dont)). Im not sure if your strat would be very profitable shorthanded, but I am sure that you cant play with 4 buy ins. BELIEVE ME!

[steve7stud 0]

right, i understand the reasoning why one has to have a bankroll in somewhere in the region of 300BB for limit poker.but why do people suggest you need one for NL?personally, 4 buy ins is the most you should ever need. i believe i have read somebody say here that you need a bigger bankroll to handle the bigger variance on NL, or that you need, as just now in a post, 10 buy ins.has anyone ever been so bad as to lose 10 buy ins???personally, i play the short handed cash games with $200 ($2-$4NL) and  im up $9000 (i.e. 45 buy ins) over the course of the last 5 or 6 months and my worst ever run has been dropping down 3 buy ins. id like to considering myself an aggressive player when the opponents are tight and vice versa.so what do those who play NL consider as there bankroll.ps. i can see why when i play 3 table short handed limit you need the bankroll, i recently had a 110BB downswing which sucked.

First of all, congrats on taking 800 and running it up to 9k. I think that's great. It seems like Party does their best to make sure that people don't go bust by limiting the buy ins in no limit and pot limit games. They also only spread 30-60 as their max for limit. This essentially is better business for them. They want the rake, ante, etc. And if people go bust, they can't do that.It seems like what you did was take a shot at the 200 no limit and turned it into a nice profit. I think you're from London though. Not sure how old you are. But, if you play in live games you will understand the importance of having a LARGE bank roll in no limit. Primarily in Europe all they play is pot limit and no limit. I'd hate to see you go bust. But, if and when you do play live, a big br is your friend. On Party you can only lose so much. Occassionally you will see a bigger stack, but it won't make much of a difference. You will soon find that in many casinos, there is no limit as to how much you can sit down with. The big stacks will try and muscle you, similar to a tournament. If you don't have the proper funds to play, you're going to be making incorrect decisions. Again, you need to make the distinction between playing pro, and playing recreationally. As well as playing online and playing in a casino. Congrats on your win though. Good Luck.

[Binbs 0]

I have to agree with john kane here.Playing like a maniac does not make you cash. Ive played prolly 400 k+ hands in no limit at .25/.5 to 1/2 blinds and playing like a maniac does not pay off at those limits. If you want to profit you must be selective with your aggression or you will be predictable to ppl who play tight and are waiting to trap you. Ive seen its hundreds of times, how ppl play like maniacs by raising in position, raising Ax etc etc.You play tight and aggressive and you use selective aggression by figuring out your opponents hand, his ability to lay down a good hand and representing a scary board, if you wanna bluff. You play your pot odds and your opponents and of course push with good cards and it should work out fine. You cannot ignore pot odds with raises and reraises when you have the worse hand 50 % of the time moving from the flop.You must play in a way that ppl have a hard time putting you on a hand, but that doesnt mean you need to play like a maniac.If you wanna play like Doyle Brunson, then yes maybe you need 20 times buyin. If you play smart and are able to lay down good hands as well as get some good reads on your opponents playstyle, you may be lucky enough to play with a BR that is 5 times buyin. This at least applies for the lower limits. Maybe its more different playing 5/10 and a above. Ive played 5/10 and yes people can do some big bluffs at times. For the lower limits however, playing with unapplied aggression does not pay off.