Bankroll Management
Posted by TuttiFrutti
Posted by
TuttiFrutti
posted in
Mid Stakes
Bankroll Management
As far as i know you need 2500bb to exclude the possibility of losing all your bankroll at a cash game assuming you have a 4bb/100bb winrate in the worst case scenario. does and if so how it impacts this variance calculation the fact that you and your opponents always buyin for 100bb or if the game is deeper and you and your opponents always buyin for at least 300bb? In other words do you need 2500bb to play safe only in a 100bb deep game or you cannot lose all your 2500bb bankroll if the game is always played deeper than 300bb?
Loading 3 Comments...
Numbers depend on standard deviation. Deeper games have a bunch of different impacts that influence the "risk of ruin" (RoR):
Hard to say what the final effect should be, I'd guess (!) that SDV slightly goes up, so your bankroll should be slightly bigger.
PS: Where do you get 250 buy-ins?! What numbers did you take? And what was your "accepted risk"? It can never get zero, it only can get very close to ...
Your risk of ruin can never be zero. I have no idea where you got 2500bb, there's absolutely nothing special about that number.
If the game is deeper your standard deviation (what you may call variance) will go you slightly up, like has been said before. Your winrate might go up a bit too. It may go up enough to offset most of the extra risk
Hehe, this is quite a brave statement. :D Poker still is a zero-sum-game, so for one's winrate to go up, the other's got to go down. And this purely comes from playing better than the others. But that's by far no matter of course. Deep play is a different beast and many 100bb regs play poorly on 200bb+, at least due to missing routine. And many "bad players" that lose quite a bit on 100bb "accidentally" play better on deep stacks, which means, their reduced losses (even when still losing) cause our winrate to sink as well.
Summarized - don't link deep stacks to higher winrates. It's tempting, because it looks so sweet, but dangerous.
Be the first to add a comment