ITH Poker Forum

[emmapeel]

NL bankroll advice refers to how many buy-ins you have in reserve before you can play safely with 20 buy-ins being a common figure used. (I use the ultra-safe 45 buy-ins myself.)

But isn't the size of the buy-in a factor in this?

Max buy-ins are usually around the 100BB mark, but say you bought in for only 20BB. Does this mean you can safely play for 1/5th of the bankroll you used for when you bought in for 100BB? It doesn't seem quite right to me as surely you are going to lose the 20BB buy-in more often and although you won't lose any big pots the average size of the smaller pots you play is going to be relatively much more.

Therefore if:

100BB buy-in = 20 buy-ins bankroll, what bankroll would you need for the 20BB buy-in?

thx

EP

[Molex]

I try to stick to 30buy-ins. For me 30 maximum buyins (which is 100bb) is a perfect number. I do not see advantage in siting to the table with less than maximum buyin. In my opinion it is not effective since you never know when you are geting a nuts against a second best hand. But it might be that some people feel more secured siting with only 20bbs.

[iponnet22]

i would you need less than your total br in $'s if you gona shortstack consistantly

somepeople buy in short when they move up to take the postflop play out of their game, when you have 40bbs and in LP with AK and two limpers or even raisers are in thepot and you push, the limpers with 22-88 are gona fold and the raisers with 99s/10s/AJ might fold. also people wont steal your blinds because they dont want to have to call your allins with their A5s, so you will experience less varience and need less money for the new level

[Silvershade]

My guess is that you will need a smaller bankroll for short stack type strategy.

[rwrangler]

I experimented quite successfully with a short stack strategy about 6 months ago. My typical buy in was 18 big blinds (20 if that was the minimum). Before I switched to this short stack strategy, my typical game was NL200 ($1/$2) and for the short stack strategy i was playing in NL1000 games ($5/$10) buying in for ruffly the same ammount of money ($180-$200).

So...if the 20 buy in bankroll rule holds for both styles...a 4k bankroll would be sufficient for either of these strategies. However, I found the short stack strategy to contain much more varience. So, for me to feel safe playing the shortstack strategy, I would want at least 30 buy ins...maybe more.

So, to answer your question, a sufficent bankroll interms of "buy-ins" is dependent on your varience. Since a smaller buy in (in terms of BB's) will create higher varience in most games, then your bankroll would need to be larger (in terms of Buy-In's).

[mrxc]

My preference is 30 buyins for max (100bb) and 45 buyins for sitting down with a 40% max (40bb).



Example: 1/2

Full buyin: $6000
40%buyin: $3600

[emmapeel]

thx for the replies.

Yes there is much more variance with a shorter bankroll as you are all-in much more often and usually only with a slight edge.

I'm going to have a guess that you need a bankroll of somewhere in the middle. So if you need 20buy-ins for 100BB and you want to move down to only 20BB's you will need a bankroll for a 60BB stack which is in the middle of the two. therefore if:

100BB stack = 20 buy-ins bankroll
20BB stack = 60 buy-ins bankroll

EP

[imdeadgore]

i think if you play short stzacked, you only need 5 maximus buy ins, becuase that effectibvely 25 sss buyins. when you play big stack strategy you need 20 buyins

[simmo5050]

I've read many times that if you haven't got a sufficient BR to sit down with the max-buy in, you should be playing at a lower level although this may not apply if you are 'taking a shot' at a higher limit.

Personally, after coming close to going bust, I am going to stick to fairly conservative BR requirements and build up steadily.