24 replies to this topic

[chessazhole]

I have 3,725 and only play in mt tournaments. Ive been looking all over the web for a bankroll guide, but there are no pages so I decided to ask you guys. How many buy-ins do I need to play a certain level? What is the range of tournaments I should play?

[Matty]

20X the tourney buy in should be enough. So if you play 20+2. A bakroll of $440 should be lots.

[Actuary]

Matty, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 4:55 AM, said:

20X the tourney buy in should be enough. So if you play 20+2. A bakroll of $440 should be lots.

really?have you done that over say 5000 MTT's?I would have no idea how to quantify a bankroll.your own style has a lot to do with it.

[Zach6668]

MTT players have told me 100 buyins..

[sdnuol]

chris ferguson says 100 maybe even 200 buyins for mtts. id go somewhere closer to 100 but whatever you are comfortable with.

[Sluggo]

100 is too round to be right.Regardless, your bankroll depends upon your outcome distribution.

[sdnuol]

Sluggo, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 1:00 AM, said:

Regardless, your bankroll depends upon your outcome distribution.

could you explainwhat this means?

[Actuary]

Sluggo, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 9:00 PM, said:

100 is too round to be right.Regardless, your bankroll depends upon your outcome distribution.

thus it's really impossible to nail down.So 100 is used, apparently.Who plays enough MTT's to really know?You can't play w/o the rollSee, it's like circular

[Sluggo]

Well, losing players need an infinite bankroll.Breakeven players need an astronomical bankroll.Significantly winning players need a bankroll of 50-500 buy ins.

[timwakefield]

Matty, on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006, 4:55 AM, said:

20X the tourney buy in should be enough. So if you play 20+2. A bakroll of $440 should be lots.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Most mtts pay out about 10% of the field. This means that on average you will lose 9 straight games before you win 1. In your scenario 9 straight losses takes almost half you bankroll. Add in the fact that mtts are extremely top-heavy (so that cashing 1 out of 10 does not mean winning 10 buy-ins necessarily) and you can see how you will go broke extremely quickly playing $20 mtts with $400.

[bascomeb]

Actuary, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 1:11 PM, said:

thus it's really impossible to nail down.So 100 is used, apparently.Who plays enough MTT's to really know?You can't play w/o the rollSee, it's like circular

When I was playing a lot of MTT's, I always made sure to have 100 buy ins. 50 is a lot to start out with but you should never move up until you have 100. And you should probably move down once you have 100 buy ins of the previous amount. There is sooooo much variance in MTT's that it really takes a while before that big cash to make up for all the sick bubbles you've received.

[sdnuol]

Sluggo, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 3:57 AM, said:

Well, losing players need an infinite bankroll.Breakeven players need an astronomical bankroll.Significantly winning players need a bankroll of 50-500 buy ins.

oh that was dumb easy how didnt i get that

[UncleHoot]

If all you do is play MTT's, in my opinion it's harder to get an impressive ROI (as opposed to SnG's), unless you've had some really good finishes.100x buy-in seems excessive to me. But I'm a winning player, so I just deposit more money when I need it, and take out some when I can. If I had a true "bankroll" at this point, it would be about $1,000, and I play mostly $10 MTT's*, SnG's and lower, so 100x should be very safe.*I've had my best luck with Party's 5-table SnG MTT's. Perhaps I'm not generally patient enough in other large MTT's...?

[Zach6668]

UncleHoot, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 2:26 PM, said:

*I've had my best luck with Party's 5-table SnG MTT's. Perhaps I'm not generally patient enough in other large MTT's...?

The thing to realize is that the variance in a 50 person tournament is a lot less than the variance in a 2000 person tourney.You wouldn't really need 100 buyins for a 5-table MTT. Doesn't hurt, but it's probably not necessary.- Zach

[Royal_Tour]

Zach6668, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

The thing to realize is that the variance in a 50 person tournament is a lot less than the variance in a 2000 person tourney.You wouldn't really need 100 buyins for a 5-table MTT. Doesn't hurt, but it's probably not necessary.- Zach

exactly.You should also experiement with your idea to play only MTT's. If you cant final table 5% of the time,(i said 10% before, but thats just how i roll) i suggest stop wasting your money.

[sdnuol]

Royal_Tour, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 3:11 PM, said:

exactly.You should also experiement with your idea to play only MTT's. If you cant final table 5% of the time,(i said 10% before, but thats just how i roll) i suggest stop wasting your money.

is it agreed that you need to be ITM approx. 10% of the time to make any profits from playing strictly MTTs?

[meservery]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 6:44 AM, said:

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Most mtts pay out about 10% of the field. This means that on average you will lose 9 straight games before you win 1. In your scenario 9 straight losses takes almost half you bankroll. Add in the fact that mtts are extremely top-heavy (so that cashing 1 out of 10 does not mean winning 10 buy-ins necessarily) and you can see how you will go broke extremely quickly playing $20 mtts with $400.

you think thats crazy. i think hoyt corkins said you should by in for 10 percent of your role.

[Royal_Tour]

sdnuol, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

is it agreed that you need to be ITM approx. 10% of the time to make any profits from playing strictly MTTs?

Thats how i look at it, depending on which MTT's you'[re playing.when i went on a 2 month MTT only stretch i played about 30 MTT's, 15 a month, I think i made the money between 20-25% (which was a good run), and i quadrupled my original BR without any wins.I then spent a good chunk of it playing drunken cash games, which i learned my lesson the hard way, and also a couple larger buy in mtt's.so to answer the question, yes, you will need to make the money 10% of the time to profit, if you fail to do this, making a final table appearance at least 5% of the time should make up for it

[sdnuol]

Royal_Tour, on Wednesday, August 23rd, 2006, 3:32 PM, said:

Thats how i look at it, depending on which MTT's you'[re playing.when i went on a 2 month MTT only stretch i played about 30 MTT's, 15 a month, I think i made the money between 20-25% (which was a good run), and i quadrupled my original BR without any wins.I then spent a good chunk of it playing drunken cash games, which i learned my lesson the hard way, and also a couple larger buy in mtt's.so to answer the question, yes, you will need to make the money 10% of the time to profit, if you fail to do this, making a final table appearance at least 5% of the time should make up for it

thanks thats what i had always thought but never really confirmed it with anyone

[bascomeb]

sdnuol, on Thursday, August 24th, 2006, 3:15 AM, said:

is it agreed that you need to be ITM approx. 10% of the time to make any profits from playing strictly MTTs?

For MTTs your ROI% is much more important then your ITM%. It all depends on your strategy but how deep you go is more important the # of times you cash