To be blunt, I'm just looking for reassurance.

I went on FullTilt before, having coming off when suffering a bad beat and going out, eating etc. I logged back on and was +$90 in about an hour.

My target was to get my BR to $370, and then stop. At $350, I thought this shouldn't take too long.

However, I slipped to $310, then $270. Wanting to rest at $300, I fell to $220, and then $180, following 2 bad beats.

Following some events, I'm sitting here at $40...



I can't believe what I've done. I always tell myself to stop playing at a set time, but today I was free and went on. When I start to lose money, I know I should stop, but I ventured on anyways. I can't rest now; can't sleep. Just about managed to drink some water. I felt physically sick following the last hand (set vs. set, losing me a notable chunk)

Over the last 2 days I'd gained $300 at the .25/.5 tables, yet I'm finding myself back at .05/ .10.

The only consolation I can give myself is that I was at these tables with $77 recently and built up my bankroll, but its reassurance is of little effect.


Any words of wisdom at all are greatly appreciated.

this probably wouldn't be so bad if you were playing within your means...But, people have done much worse in a day. Also, Greg Raymer once said that playing with goals such as yours only causes you to make poor decisions because you are not 100% focused on playing your "A" game but your results instead. Not those exact words, but along the same line.

if nothing else, learn from this mistake.

maybe some Confucius: Do not learn with profit in mind, but instead passion. Profit will follow.

I started playing NLHE cash on FTP earlier this year and started with $100 at the $10 max tables. I built i up to about $150 and thought I was going ok. Then I had one session where I lost 7.5 buy ins. I felt very similar to how you are feeling now, I just kept thinking how horrible I was playing, maybe I should go back to limit, etc etc.

The one thing I remember most about that day was I had AA cracked a fair few times. I started to question my play in the most ridiculous of circumstances. I remember late on in the session stacking off with AA on a TJx board against TJ when the guy had called off 1/3 of his stack pf. The most outrageous thing was that I actually managed to convince myself that I had made a bad play by doing this. All I can say is do not do this.

Personally I found the best thing to do was to get straight back on the horse. I just went straight back on the next day and started playing again. I have never had another day like this one for 8 months, but I know exactly how you are feeling.

When I first deposited $50, I quickly took it to about $130 then started playing $0.10/0.25 and quickly lost $122, I then started grinding at $0.02/0.04 then ).05/0.10 & now ).10/0.25 and now I have $1125, this took about 4-5 months but I have a solid schooling now and will not move up a level unless Im confident Im crushing the game, not ure if that helps or offers inspiration

Take a break. Clear your head and come back to the lower limits with a good mindset. We've all slipped like that at some point or another. My biggest slip was jumping into a juicy $10/20 6max limit game with about 1/6th of my bankroll. I ran it up about $300 before losing it all over the span of a few hours. Expensive lessons learned: Don't play games you are unfamiliar with, don't jump up stakes, and don't chase losses.

If the swings are that much of your bankroll, then you're not properly rolled to be playing the limits you're playing and it'll affect you more when you lose 15% of your roll in a single hand. Stick to lower limits until you have a bigger cushion.

yeah what he said

you know what you did

don't do it anymore

And by some events you mean moving UP in limits instead of down. Yeah, we all did done it.

By the way, at no point were you ever really "properly rolled" for .10/.25, so keep that in mind.

If there's a limit lower than .05/.10 on FT then drop to it. Otherwise you really should be grinding out micro SNG's right now.

I'm pretty sure if you want a lower limit, you gotta go to pokerstars.

QFT.

Grind out those low limit SNGs. Or those micro tournaments even. Pokerstars has $.01/.02, .02/.05 NLHE and .02/.04 LHE for us cheapies.

I am a new blogger and never really paid attention to being properly rolled for a particular limit and it has cost me. I am just now trying to learn the game.

Can anyone tell me the technique for determing when you are rolled for a particular limit?

Thanks

Welcome to the forum.

It depends on how much variance is built into your style, but I'd say:

Full ring - 20 full buyins
6 max - 25-30 full buyins
Heads Up - 40-50 full buyins

That means that if you're playing 6 max 1/2 NL, you should have between $5000-$6000 to play with. Obviously your variance will be lower if you play tighter and if you play fewer tables, but those are good guidelines I think.

How does the amount of tables you play affect your variance?

It doesn't. Playing more tables can affect your hourly rate though, because your concentration's spread out between multiple tables, instead of just one or two. I wouldn't recommend playing more than 4 tables at the level you regularly play at, for this very reason.

If you're playing 4 tables instead of 1 table, you're seeing 4x as many hands, making 4x as many decisions and in partial theory, only able to pay 1/4 as much attention to each table. Your play on one table will often affect your play on another table and if you have a few bad hands, you can lose a lot of money very quickly, especially if you're prone to tilting where your tilt might influence your play on another table that you're playing.

Basically, it's putting 4x as much money on the table at once so your variance will be higher for that reason.

Thanks guys for the info. It looks like I was really under rolled (if that is a phrase lol) for the limits I was playing. I look forward to blogging more.

Another question I have come across is how much of a tournament buy in should you pay for your particular bankroll? Is there a technique for this also?

I really enjoy the online poker world now. I play at Pokerstars.com, Bodoglife.com, Fulltiltpoker.com, ultimatebet.com, Absolutepoker.com, pokerroom.com, vippoker.com, bugsysclub.com, playersonly.com, and sportsbook.com

I really love the online play whats the latest with all the legal stuff about online gaming?

Also, if you ever make a deposit on bodoglife.com use bonus code: PEBCEFD for a nice bonus and tell them Derek Ridley told you.

I been playing freerolls lately because I cashed out $180 thru multiple freerolls, but I wish I wouldn't have because now its harder to fund, so I'm doing it the long way thru freerolls to build my bankroll back up. Anyone want to transfer me a few bucks, I'll pay it back double after I win another big event please post... (AKA) Derek_Ridley. You can see all my alias's at pocketfives.com

I'm glad to be playing poker again..

Thanks and have a great day .

Derek Ridley

Actually, what's happening is we're playing 4 times as many hands/hour, which means the short-run will be compressed, and we'll reach the long-run quicker. On a hand/by/hand basis, our variance will be the same, but over a period of time our bankroll graph will MORE resemble a straight, upward sloping line than the jagged (down uuuuup down down up up up down UP) graph we usually see. This is only when the x-axis is TIME, however, and not "hands played."

So our variance over TIME will actually be smoothed out. We'll lose more and win more in our bad and good 100 hand stretches, but we'll simply have more of those in a similar period of time, so in a week we're likely to be closer (percentage-wise) to our true/winrate playing 4 tables than playing 1.


I weep for people that don't understand this.

this won't take long ...

I don't even get it, but I never hang out in the strategy sections, so be nice.

Just wait for it. That's all I'm saying.

Ah. You should have simply posted a picture of a bowl of popcorn.

Quick, somebody give me a 3rd and 30 times more retarded view to argue in favor of!

God controls variance.

See, the problem with this entire bankroll management and multitabling scheme is that it does not take into its calculations all the Deitys of the world. Buddhists may find success in their weak-tight approach to the game, but while they wait for their pocket pairs to blossom into ascended forms like sets and quads, a crusade is taking place from the Christianic aggressive style that is pushing TP/TK to it's limits. I mean, if Jesus died on the cross then why should A-K not be crucified? For on the next Sunday the hand will rise up from the drawing-dead to catch runner runners for full houses and all will be good. However, there are some faiths that believe that A-K is indeed a good prophet, but is not the true messiah. They can be found chasing club flushes since they believe that the shape most resembles the Star of David. However, the truest believers in the kamikaze art of aggrodonking believe that call is a forbidden word and will raise and re-raise anything all in for the sake of folding equity. They can be found shrieking and tongues with flipping as their 4 preflop bet suited connectors crash into A-A towers bringing them to a crumble. These followers believe it is deemed ok to sacrifice your pots odds in the holy chip waging war.

My argument was pretty thin so this isn't worth it.

The whole joke is that I'll go 50 posts back and forth with you if I think you're really wrong in what you're saying, futilly trying to get you to admit it.

As for this, I guess the point I was more trying to make is that your variance will be higher in an absolute sense in relation to your bankroll simply becuase you have 4x as much on the table at once and a bad hour can spiral out of control pretty fast.

In terms of reaching the long run results faster, that's absolutely true. It's just that it's pretty damned hard to win or lose 4 buyins in an hour playing at a single table but it's really not uncommon to have that happen when 4 tabling. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

If you wanna multi table, you should have more buyins than if you're only playing one table.

God is dead.
Variance is its own master.
You spent way too much time on that post, but I appreciate the effort.

You overestimate the time it takes my brain to spew out complete bullshit

I will, too. Here, as well as in real life. My most common saying is, "Just say you're wrong. Just say it. Just say you're wrong."

My point is only this:

If per-hand winrates stay the same (which they don't, but it doesn't drop far enough to make that big of a difference for most competent players), variance will be less meaningful in any real sense. Playing more hands means you'll have fewer losing months, fewer losing weeks, fewer losing days, and even fewer losing HOURS. Every additional hand is a chance for us to tack on to our total win, and will bring us closer to the long-run. Playing 4 tables you might have an 8 hour stretch where you drop 7 buy-ins. Playing one table you might have a 4-day stretch where you drop 7 buy-ins. These are really the exact same thing. But when you're playing 4 tables, regression to the mean happens faster (on an hour-by-hour basis), so blips tend to "smooth out," and become less noticeable.

We're so damned close.

you are rocking BR. Well Done.

Wang is right.

St.Dev per 100 hands, as we measure it in PT will be no different.

Variance per hour, a relatively meaningless measurement in the age of multitabling, might change, or it might not.

Multitabling, unless you suck balls and your winrate drops significantly, will not affect your variance.

Seriously.

Fair enough. It's not Wang though.

Here's your answer read it

And for good measure read this too

owise1

It fooled me as well, I thought it was Shimmering Wang as well until 5 minutes ago. It's not just the picture either, the style of writing is also quite similar.

I had to look twice also. He didn't write Wang at the end at least.

lol

indeed.

What would give you guys that impression? Can't you see that I am a bear? And sporting a hip, natural-looking mustache? I look nothing like this "Wang" fellow you keep referring to.

No, I really am me. I just assume everyone knows, since my "disguise" is so fucking obvious, but I suppose it could be a little confusing. I'm in hiding from somebody who knows me in real life, and knows my former handle. I figure this way she can't just google me and get a hit from posts I make in this forum, and that the change won't really affect anybody else.

Regards,


Wan-

(ahem)

Bear


PS- It's nice to know my voice is unique enough to be somewhat recognizable.

Wowow. It really is Wang. My head hurts a little.

Seriously? Never saw that one coming.

Nope.

Acid is 100% correct here.

It's correct that playing multiple tables will lower variance if you are constantly making correct decisions. You can play 4x as many hands and therefore make 4x as many correct decision which will level out your variance. What people are over looking is that if you are playing 4 tables and not making correct decisions, or are on tilt, YOU WILL LOSE MONEY 4X AS FAST. I have had this happen to my self, take a couple beats at one table, then my play starts to deteriorate on the other 3.

Playing multiple tables reduces variance if you are getting your money is an a 75-25 favorite 4 times as much. However, if your getting it in as a 25-75 underdog, its going to reduce the variance of you winning money and therefore you will lose more faster.

wtf

FLOL... quote of the day!!!

who is this Wang fellow and why should I care?

Wang is dreamy

no.

No, I was actually about 99% wrong. I just wasn't thinking about things properly. Zach and Tactical Bear are right.


Actually, I feel this point is very valid. Your per hand variance never changes regardless of how many tables you play. Your absolute variance however should be a bit higher becuase of the increased amount of money in play. I'm not talking long term, but I'm talking in any given hour or day, playing 4 tables, you can win or lose a larger amount of money simply as a product of having more money in play. I have to have the ability to win or lose more money becuase I have $800 (4-$200 NL tables) in play as opposed to $200.

If you're in capable of losing 5 buyins in an hour at one table, but it can happen if you're 4-tabling, then I'm pretty sure my above statement has to be true. It's totally short run, but I am quite certain that few people will argue that you need a slightly larger bankroll to play 4 tables at once than you do to play one.

This isn't an issue of variance. The issue here is that you're a losing player. Your hourly rate will be magnified by four times if you're playing 4 times as many tables and 4 times as many hands, but your per-hand rate should stay the same (assuming you're not overtaxing yourself with the additional tables). If you're losing a dollar a hand, you'll still lose a dollar a hand when you play 4 tables instead of one, you'll just lose 400 dollars an hour instead of 100 dollars. This is NOT variance; this is just the correlation between volume and profit (loss).



I am-
(ahem)

HE is nobody. He offers very little of value, and does not have a mustache.

Also, he's a faggot.



No. A little bird tells me he's currently reading a poker forum in the computer lab instead of attending an environmental science lab. He is also going to get a B- in an Online Intro to Theatre class.

He's a faggot.



You're still thinking about things wrong.

You can win or lose larger amounts of money playing 4 tables for 3 hours than you can playing 1 table for 3 hours. But you can also win or lose larger amounts of money playing 1 table for 12 hours than you can playing 1 table for 3 hours. Do you need a larger bankroll if you plan on playing more hours/week? Because that's all multi-tabling is. It's just time-compression.

Think about it this way. Say you play 250 hands at each of 4 tables. You take 10 horrendous beats over the course of the 5 hour session, and end up dropping 5 buyins. You play perfect otherwise.

The next day, your friend plays the exact same 1000 hands, except he plays them at one table over the course of 20 hours. He plays exactly the same as you, and takes the very same 10 awful beats from the same players in the same situation, and drops 5 buyins.

Can we really say that because your hands took place in a shorter absolute time-frame you need a larger bankroll than him? Absolutely NOT. If we look at variance in terms of Risk of Ruin -- the only thing that really matters for poker players as far as bankroll considerations go -- then time is of absolutely no importance. It's simply about the expected return for each meaningful unit of contest: in this case, each hand. The math simply doesn't care how long it takes you to get 100K hands in. It just cares about your per/hand winrate, and the number of hands you played. That's all.

Don't think of it like: "I have more money in play," because that's misleading if you're a winning player. The amount of money you have in play will affect your HOURLY return, but not your PER HAND return.

And that's all that matters.


Signed,

Me



PS- The only argument you can make for increasing your bankroll because you multitable is one in which you stipulate that your winrate decreases as you add tables. Each table may add to your hourly rate, but decrease your per hand rate. Then, it takes less awful luck to bust us, so we need a slightly higher bankroll. For people that multitable, however, this is rarely a concern. My winrate for full-ring LHE went from 3.6BB/100 at one table to 3.3BB/100 when I played 4 tables. 300BB was more than enough at each level.