Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Article: A Blended Approach to Bankroll Management

Reply to Thread
  1. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Feb 25th, 2010 (2/25/2010 1:34pm)

     
  2. mogoxx mogoxx is offline

    Pittsburgh, PA
    United States

    Posts: 314
    Joined: Jul 07

    Feb 26th, 2010 (2/26/2010 1:35pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>This is exactly why I come to this site... good read man!</p>
  3. Chesternuts Chesternuts is offline

    OH
    United States

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Jan 10

    Feb 26th, 2010 (2/26/2010 1:44pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Awesome article</p>
  4. LtotheK LtotheK is offline

    Posts: 247
    Joined: Feb 10

    Feb 26th, 2010 (2/26/2010 2:07pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>::Standing ovation::</p>
  5. HeHateThee HeHateThee is offline

    West Chester, PA
    United States

    Posts: 109
    Joined: Dec 08

    Feb 26th, 2010 (2/26/2010 11:03pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>DGillis ... keep posting great stuff. Thanks!</p>
  6. jbravo18 jbravo18 is offline

    Norman, OK
    United States

    Posts: 178
    Joined: Jun 07

    Feb 27th, 2010 (2/27/2010 12:52am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Are you psychic or something? How did you know I was playing outside my roll, and needed a reminder about BR management? </p>
    <p>TYVM, this article gave me a lot to think about!</p>
  7. Fox Fox is offline

    Posts: 2,686
    Joined: Apr 05

    Feb 27th, 2010 (2/27/2010 8:48am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>The psychological side of bankroll management is too often ignored. Well done and well written.</p>
  8. elendil elendil is offline

    Sydney
    Australia

    Posts: 2,758
    Joined: Jun 07

    Feb 28th, 2010 (2/28/2010 12:50am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Excellent piece mate. Quaility, write more. </p>
  9. RaisyDaisy RaisyDaisy is offline

    Virginia Beach, VA
    United States

    Posts: 4
    Joined: Dec 08

    Feb 28th, 2010 (2/28/2010 2:09pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Solid.</p>
  10. StevieD561 StevieD561 is offline

    Wellington, FL
    United States

    Posts: 282
    Joined: May 09

    Mar 1st, 2010 (3/1/2010 12:48am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>excellent post. i think, like any other BR strategy, that this will work for some and not others. i have always been brick-and-mortar when it comes to BR, but im willing to give this a shot. some players, on the other hand, cannot simply break from their BR code. but hey, that's ok. more money for us :D</p>
  11. finewhine finewhine is offline

    Las Vegas, NV
    United States

    Posts: 861
    Joined: Nov 06

    Mar 2nd, 2010 (3/2/2010 4:04am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Gave me a lot to think about.  Excellent article.</p>
  12. blingATL blingATL is offline

    Marietta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 253
    Joined: Sep 08

    Mar 6th, 2010 (3/6/2010 8:00am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>solid indeed</p>
  13. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Mar 9th, 2010 (3/9/2010 1:41pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>thanks all, greatly appreciated!</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  14. techbob77 techbob77 is offline

    Posts: 20
    Joined: Nov 09

    Mar 15th, 2010 (3/15/2010 9:14am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Do you think this bankroll strategy could extend to cash games? I'm not so sure it's something that is a concept for cash games, but just curious on your thoughts.</p>
    <p>General opinions:</p>
    <p>1. I have done your balanced bankroll for about 100 games(3.25 and 6.50 6max sng), and I don't think I have a problem with the higher level game, as long as I have enough tables open to just be making poker decisions. Granted this is still "fun money" for me since it's less than minimum wage per hour.</p>
    <p>2. near term future: It'd get harder and harder once you start mixing $25 and $13's(for a 6max sng example), and say $50 for first is a psychological barrier so that I think about those over the $13's even if I have a bunch of tables opened up at the same time.(and that $25 games are more than $50 for first might make some difference)</p>
    <p>3. longer term future: I think the goal of this strat was only really for building a roll but maybe it's usable at a higher level if your willing to accept that risk. I think more likely you'd hit a point where the strategy for winning half the games is radically different than the other half. I think at some point you should end up having a "regular roll" and a "shot taking roll"(aka do sats to major tournaments), so you have some money that if it's lost well you tried, back to the regular grind.</p>
  15. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Mar 15th, 2010 (3/15/2010 2:14pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Cash: Technically I believe the numbers would still work out, but IMO cash so much more complicated that it might prove hard to really focus enough. There are players who multi cash so I think its possible, but no matter your game being comfortable and +EV are must's. Personally I would need more experience to try it.</p>
    <p>1.thats good it really is so key to be sure your playing your A game @ both buy in levels, whatever that takes for you individually.  </p>
    <p>2. There is a difference when you jump certain levels, sometimes its not big but other times its huge. I think one of the greatest aspects of the system is that its self regulating, if your playing a game that your -EV in you will find it hard to move up, so theoretically you wont be moving up until your ready. </p>
    <p>You could hit a nice upswing that would move you up but that's only going to last so long before your back down to where you need to be. Once you hit that -EV level your numbers arent going to be nearly as nice and you can either choose to switch to a different system to grind or keep at it and work on improving until your +EV. Then you have to look at your earnings per hour and decide if a potential drop in hourly earnings  is worth trying to move up, thats personal and totally up to you. </p>
    <p>3. This is 100% a building system and when you reach a level that your no longer able to move up you should max out your EPH I personally would switch to something like Jennifears volume based system. I always consider taking shots a withdrawal and if you dont need the money when Jennifear says you should "withdraw"  simply set it aside as a shot taking fund.</p>
    <p>I think you could safely use the shot taking method above and only use "withdrawn" money. Since the psychology theories are all based on net worth I would still use the total of your bankroll to get your Kelly bet % and adjust it for comfort from there.</p>
    <p>I hope that helps, if not or I did a poor job of explaining something feel free to ask whatever!</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  16. greenpepper greenpepper is offline

    Posts: 62
    Joined: Jul 07

    Mar 16th, 2010 (3/16/2010 2:03am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Great Article, very well explained and articulated.</p>
    <p>Ty very much</p>
  17. rbhambha rbhambha is offline

    Austin, TX
    United States

    Posts: 7
    Joined: Aug 08

    Apr 5th, 2010 (4/5/2010 2:30am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Hey dgilis,</p>
    <p>I noticed a typo in the following section:</p>
    <p>"Let’s say you use a 100 buy-in system.  Getting a 30% return on 2% of or your bankroll, in reality, you’re only getting a .3% return on your bankroll.  At 150 buy-ins, your ROA goes down to .2%, and we miss out on even greater value."</p>
    <p>You meant 1% instead of 2% in the second sentence.</p>
    <p>Also, could you please explain where you got the 1/6 and the 5/6 for the tournament split? It seems so arbitrary. </p>
    <p>Thanks</p>
  18. eddiebean0 eddiebean0 is offline

    Posts: 5
    Joined: Apr 10

    Apr 19th, 2010 (4/19/2010 2:47pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Great article.Bankroll management is huge in order to be successful. Learn how to manage your bankroll and tons of other strategies at deepstacks.com. secret promo code (pcktaces) to get $50 off of registration.</p>
  19. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    May 3rd, 2010 (5/3/2010 2:34pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>rbhambha,</p>
    <p>Thanks, it appears at first glance that was indeed a typo. I will go back and review the first cuts of the article and likely have it changed shortly. </p>
    <p>As far as the 1/6-5/6 it is merely a representation of how many tables I was playing at the time. If you play more or less feel free to substitute your own totals. </p>
    <p>fwiw 1/6 stands for one buy in out of a six table group. I was playing all six at once and considered each round of six to be a separate group. I would play a group and then adjust my mixture according to the results. I tend to play one group to completion, I found it helps my HU game and I think makes me more money. </p>
    <p>If you have a different interpretation or want to think of it in a different way it should be easy enough to inject into the over all concept to get a more personalized system. Thanks for taking the time to read and offer your thoughts. </p>
     
    Thread Starter
  20. _rayden_ _rayden_ is offline

    Hartford, CT
    United States

    Posts: 260
    Joined: Feb 10

    May 10th, 2010 (5/10/2010 2:20am) in reply to dgillis

    <p>What would be the advice for using this strategy for large field tournements? Does that make a difference?</p>
  21. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    May 24th, 2010 (5/24/2010 12:35pm) in reply to dgillis

    <p>Rayden, </p>
    <p>The only thing that should change (other than the min buyin's you use in your formula) is the "fuzzy factor." </p>
    <p>There was a discussion a while back as to the true definition of "variance" vs. how it is used in poker. The real statistic you have to measure to understand your risk of going broke is called "skew" and it increases along with the number of possible outcomes, its what most poker players consider "variance." </p>
    <p>The stat would be based on the number of possible finishing positions and  it is a measure of the odds of a results distance from what is expected (I.E. no top three finishes in X mtt's) </p>
    <p>The system is self adjusting so that skew factor is some what accounted for and your chance of going broke would still be relatively low. </p>
    <p>You would however experience much greater swings in mtt's and bumping the fuzzy factor down a bit would help curb those. The emotional effects associated with severe swings should not be underestimated. The system relies on your ability to objectively move up and down, emotions can hinder that quite a bit. </p>
     
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads