12 replies to this topic

[strategy]

I've seen quite a few people give the advice that one shouldn't play sit and gos without 30x the buyin in your bankroll. I disagree with this, and I wonder if anyone else sees this the same way I do.The last few days have been the first respite in a very long time from a streak where I would break even or just get slammed on a nightly basis. For the first month or so, I took the abuse in semi-decent spirits and played the best that I could. But after that, emotionally, it really got to me. I would take a sick beat, go on tilt, and move up in stakes... get busted, reload, and start over.I think 15x is enough. I believe it can be done with proper tilt management. I took a few months' worth of running bad, and I can attest to the fact that a few buyins can go much further than one might imagine, provided you don't tilt like a moron.Anyone else have an experience/thoughts they'd like to share?

[otnemem]

I've never heard of this standard. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the suggestion of sitting in a ring game with 30X the BB?

[strategy]

I can recall seeing it a few times, that 30x the tournament buyin is what you need to play. I am not exactly sure where it came from, but yeah, I've heard this advice given before.Do you think it's a bit much to require?

[tekku7181]

otnemem said:

I've never heard of this standard. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the suggestion of sitting in a ring game with 30X the BB?

in a nl ring game, thats not muchstandard is 100x

[tekku7181]

strategy said:

I can recall seeing it a few times, that 30x the tournament buyin is what you need to play. I am not exactly sure where it came from, but yeah, I've heard this advice given before.Do you think it's a bit much to require?

no

[strategy]

tekku7181 said:

strategy said:

I can recall seeing it a few times, that 30x the tournament buyin is what you need to play. I am not exactly sure where it came from, but yeah, I've heard this advice given before.Do you think it's a bit much to require?

no

Why?

[tekku7181]

strategy said:

tekku7181 said:

strategy said:

I can recall seeing it a few times, that 30x the tournament buyin is what you need to play. I am not exactly sure where it came from, but yeah, I've heard this advice given before.Do you think it's a bit much to require?

no

Why?

to securely withstand short term volatility due to the nature of the game

[flyingmoose]

What happens when you get hit with a terrible luck streak and lose 8 buy-ins? You'll feel uncomfortable playing with a short roll and it WILL affect your play.

[otnemem]

tekku7181 said:

otnemem said:

I've never heard of this standard. Are you sure you're not confusing this with the suggestion of sitting in a ring game with 30X the BB?

in a nl ring game, thats not muchstandard is 100x

In a limit ring game, 30X is pretty standard.

[Swift_Psycho]

strategy said:

I've seen quite a few people give the advice that one shouldn't play sit and gos without 30x the buyin in your bankroll. I disagree with this, and I wonder if anyone else sees this the same way I do.The last few days have been the first respite in a very long time from a streak where I would break even or just get slammed on a nightly basis. For the first month or so, I took the abuse in semi-decent spirits and played the best that I could. But after that, emotionally, it really got to me. I would take a sick beat, go on tilt, and move up in stakes... get busted, reload, and start over.I think 15x is enough. I believe it can be done with proper tilt management. I took a few months' worth of running bad, and I can attest to the fact that a few buyins can go much further than one might imagine, provided you don't tilt like a moron.Anyone else have an experience/thoughts they'd like to share?

Meh, if you think it's enough, then that's fine. But, I'd never tell any random player that 15x is enough. It's much more mentally comforting to have 30x in the bankroll than 15x.

[akishore]

for both NL/PL games and SNG's, the rule is 20-30 buy-ins. if you feel secure with 15 buy-ins, that's up to you, but i personally prefer 25 buy-ins myself. some limit players get away with 200xBB bankrolls or 10 buy-ins for NL/PL games or SNG's, it's just personal taste and personal risk tolerance. but if you want to have a 98% chance of not busting, stick with the rules.aseem

[Dagg]

I didn't really think the 300x BB 'rule' for ring games was neccessary either, but then I had 150x BB downswing and realize why it's suggested, and ahd to drop limits in the progress. Sometimes a really bad swing does hit you, I'm guessing it just hasn't for you yet.While the lure of more money is always tempting, I'd stick to the 30x.

[Abbaddabba]

If you're 'killing' the game at the limits you're playing, then you likely don't need 300BB's (or 30X the buy in) to place yourself in the same range of certainty as if you're making marginal amounts. Without a large enough sample, though, it's impossible to know if you're actually killing the game or if your success is attributable to an upswing. ... And if you have a large enough sample at those limits to be able to be certain that you're "killing" a game, your bankroll will already be huge, relative to the blinds that you're playing at to test whether or not you're "killing" the game.edit: so what am i saying? stick to the 300bb rule. if your bankroll isn't big enough to meet that criteria, you certainly don't have enough of a sample to be certain that your play is solid enough to overcome the typical players variance patterns.