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

Bankroll mgmt across sites

Reply to Thread
  1. TheVillageGrinder TheVillageGrinder is offline

    United States

    Posts: 1,970
    Joined: Sep 07

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 2:12pm)

    Let's say I have a 6k roll on stars and a 2k roll on FTP and my goal is to grind mtts and practice responsible br mgmt (200buyins).

    Should I be keeping an abi of $30 on Stars and $10 on FTP? Or should I view it as a single 8k roll and maintain a 40 abi across both sites?

    Obv if there was an easy way to move $ from site to site this wouldn't be a question. But as it gets tougher to transfer and deposit money I'm wondering how ppl are handling it when they have a disparity of funds on diff sites.
  2. natewachtel11 natewachtel11 is offline

    Stow, OH
    United States

    Posts: 163
    Joined: Jan 09

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 2:29pm) in reply to TheVillageGrinder

    Its got to be different for different sites becasue you said it yourself hard to transfer\deposit.

    gl njw11
  3. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 2:35pm) in reply to TheVillageGrinder

    this is clearly subjective, it really depends on your ability\willingness to transfer, once it becomes so hard to xfr that your worried about it (like now) then with the entire objective of BR management (as I understand it) being to avoid going broke you would have to treat each site like a different roll.

    If you lose your roll on one site you cant play those tournaments which would be -EV and have the same effect as going busto.

    *edited* ( I included some extra thoughts in the opening sentence)
     
  4. tyson219 tyson219 is offline Moderator

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 2,121
    Joined: Feb 06

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 2:36pm) in reply to natewachtel11

    I think it's the entire roll. The point of BR management is to make sure you don't go broke in a bad downswing -- not that you don't go broke on one site. It's true that moving money between will be more difficult, but not impossible.
     969 
  5. Drewch Drewch is offline

    Mississauga
    Canada

    Posts: 1,208
    Joined: Oct 05

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 2:57pm) in reply to TheVillageGrinder

    Treat it as one big roll, figure out a way to transfer between sites. (Friends are key)
     
  6. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:01pm) in reply to tyson219

     
    Originally Posted by tyson219 View Post

    I think it's the entire roll. The point of BR management is to make sure you don't go broke in a bad downswing -- not that you don't go broke on one site. It's true that moving money between will be more difficult, but not impossible.

    thought about this and I have to disagree, the point is not to avoid being broke, it's about having the ability to play. if your +EV in a tournament then not playing that tournament is -EV right? so regardless if your broke on one site, all sites, broke your computer, or whatever the end result is the same, you don't get to play and not playing is -EV. BR management is all about insuring you don't lose that EV.
     
  7. tyson219 tyson219 is offline Moderator

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 2,121
    Joined: Feb 06

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:02pm) in reply to dgillis

     
    Originally Posted by dgillis View Post

    this is clearly subjective, it really depends on your ability\willingness to transfer, once it becomes so hard to xfr that your worried about it (like now) then with the entire objective of BR management (as I understand it) being to avoid going broke you would have to treat each site like a different roll.

    If you lose your roll on one site you cant play those tournaments which would be -EV and have the same effect as going busto.

    *edited* ( I included some extra thoughts in the opening sentence)

    I agree. At the same time, assuming you're a successful player, it's -EV to play $11 ABI when your bankroll allows you to play $44 ABI (assuming # of tables is constant and ROI makes $44 ABI more profitable).
     969 
  8. ntanygd760 ntanygd760 is offline

    Fort Drum, NY
    United States

    Posts: 5,495
    Joined: Jul 08

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:10pm) in reply to tyson219

    treat it as one roll but take your shots on stars. If you ended up with a $50 abi on stars and a $30 on fulltilt it would maximize your roll while cutting down your chances of having to trasfer
     
  9. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:17pm) in reply to tyson219

     
    Originally Posted by tyson219 View Post

    I agree. At the same time, assuming you're a successful player, it's -EV to play $11 ABI when your bankroll allows you to play $44 ABI (assuming # of tables is constant and ROI makes $44 ABI more profitable).

     
    Originally Posted by tyson219 View Post

    I agree. At the same time, assuming you're a successful player, it's -EV to play $11 ABI when your bankroll allows you to play $44 ABI (assuming # of tables is constant and ROI makes $44 ABI more profitable).

    hmm very good point, btw I wasnt necessarily disagreeing with just you, I am also disagreeing with my earlier statement as I to used the "avoiding busto" argument also.

    I'm interested to hear more thoughts, my immediate reaction is that your right in all cases except where you go broke and cant get money back on to play the 44 ABI. so guess we could think of it like

    44ABI>11ABI>Busto ... and from there...

    (the risk of going bust)(-EV of being bust)+(EV 11ABI) >\=\< (+EV of 44 ABI)(risk of not going bust)

    im such a math nerd, im pumped to see\figure out how this turns out, lol
     
  10. tyson219 tyson219 is offline Moderator

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 2,121
    Joined: Feb 06

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:23pm) in reply to dgillis

    I agree with that. I would add one term in to capture the odds of reloading at one site (either player transfer, actual deposit, etc.)

    (expected probability of reloading)(the risk of going bust)(-EV of being bust)+(EV 11ABI) >\=\< (+EV of 44 ABI)(risk of not going bust)
     969 
  11. Luckless Luckless is offline

    Posts: 96
    Joined: Oct 09

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:30pm) in reply to tyson219

    should be treated as 8k roll if you have an easy way to transfer between
  12. OneTime_10 OneTime_10 is offline

    Chicago, IL
    United States

    Posts: 866
    Joined: Nov 06

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:36pm) in reply to Luckless

     
    Originally Posted by Luckless View Post

    should be treated as 8k roll if you have an easy way to transfer between

    Find someone you trust and transfer that's all.
     
  13. dgillis dgillis is offline Moderator

    CA
    United States

    Posts: 1,903
    Joined: Mar 08

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:55pm) in reply to tyson219

    your right, assuming that wouldn't be a factor would be bad, but is that the right side of the equation? I think the ability to reload would decrease the risk of going bust so really we would need to adjust the risk of going bust by the probability of being able to reload and then plug it into our formula, something like this maybe?

    (expected probability of reloading)(the risk of going bust) = A

    (A)(-EV of being bust)+(EV 11ABI) >\=\< (+EV of 44 ABI)(A)
     
  14. tyson219 tyson219 is offline Moderator

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 2,121
    Joined: Feb 06

    Nov 20th, 2009 (11/20/2009 3:59pm) in reply to dgillis

     
    Originally Posted by dgillis View Post

    your right, assuming that wouldn't be a factor would be bad, but is that the right side of the equation? I think the ability to reload would decrease the risk of going bust so really we would need to adjust the risk of going bust by the probability of being able to reload and then plug it into our formula, something like this maybe?

    (expected probability of reloading)(the risk of going bust) = A

    (A)(-EV of being bust)+(EV 11ABI) >\=\< (+EV of 44 ABI)(A)

    You're right...my bad. Nice catch. I actually think it only applies to the 44 ABI side. On the 11ABI side you treat each sites bankroll separately, so there is no need to worry about a reload -- you simply follow BR management and step up/down accordingly. So, really, the reload percentage only applies when you don't follow BR management for each specific site separately, thus is only on the 44ABI side.
     969 
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads