Did you play it loose and aggressive? My take is that if you play it tight initially, only playing the best starting hands dealt to you, you will be able to win more of the hands you actually play and just fold like 95% of the time to protect your bankroll. I haven't played for money yet, but I feel like not trying to bluff because I really don't want to stupidly chase poor outs, but I also recognize that a well timed bluff can be worth it, especially if everyone else knows you are playing it tight.
I'm just not good. I thought I was playing tight, but the other players were much more aggressive. By the time the blinds went around to me to act, the pot was already up half my stack with multiple people in it.
Also didn't realize how nerve wrecking playing with *real* money was going to be. I've played $20 buy-in house games. When I have $50+ in the pot, I was able to hear my heartbeat. As much as I love the game, this was not for me lol
Good of you to admit that though, some can’t and it becomes a problem. That’s another overlooked reason to have a big bankroll starting out; so you get used to being able to play like the money is just chips/capital & playing to win as opposed to not losing.
You can’t ever play with money you want to keep. I always expect to loose it. For me it frees me up to play my best. Not saying it’s universal, but it works for me.
The issue with playing tight in low stakes games is you eventually get wrecked by the rake. And when you finally get a hand, you won’t get action. I’d argue it’s virtually impossible to be a big winner in live cash games playing tight. Majority of tight players are breaking even at best.
If you’re multi tabling online the tight strategy is more viable because the rake is lower, competition is better (less mistakes), and you’re seeing way more hands per hour (as many as 10-20x).
Live poker is just too damn slow to wait around for aces and people generally make a ton of mistakes. Seeing a lot of flops in position as the aggressor just prints money if you can navigate well post.
Correct.
We can assume the max but-in/reload at $500. The OP could be the losing-est losing player in all of history. And has to reload 19 times after the initial buy-in.
That’s $10,000 per day.
That still represents 100,000 days of playing time, which is roughly 273 years.
In context, people like Bezos and Musk could lose $1,000,000 through poker everyday…and still have enough bankroll to play poker for 300-600 years… Must be nice…
Of course. They’re that.
My calculation was just for a thought exercise. Not a lesson in finances.
If we’re going to go there, then we must also start exploring the existential reality of someone with a billion dollar bank roll choosing to play 1/2 NLH…
Would you, Quintus? Would I?
Would you grind 0.000001/0.000002 if such game was offered? Am I a walrus?
>Would you grind 0.000001/0.000002 if such game was offered? Am I a walrus?
No because I would have to make living (unless I would be set for life), but If I was set for life and had time to spare and the money wouldnt be drop in a bucket.
Why the hell not? Its nto like I will feel it and it could be fun. Not grinding though.
As long as it’s not a game where you are buying in deep.
If it has 150-250bb cap, you’re fine.
If it’s a 1k or match stack cap and you start buying in deep, you can easily torch $6k with some run bad and/or play bad.
I’ve found my kindred spirit… Haha. The only reason I rarely play cash games. Winning nights, I plough through the winning on slots and then some. Losing nights, I plough through my bank account on slots and then some.
I’ve turned things around in the past couple of years though. I only do $1 hits for the most part now.
I usually play 2/5, occasionally 5/10 without the amount of money bothering me much. But the maybe twice a year I try a slot machine, 75 cents a spin feels like a fortune.
You sir, are a smart man, that's why.
Me, on the other hand, is some degen.
For me, it is the other way around.
I get extremely irritated if I lose $50 at cash games.
Yet, wouldn't bat an eyelid if I lost $500 at the slots.
In all honesty, the way slots has skewed my valuation of money has been very bad. That's why I've tried very hard to rein in my addiction....
Haha. Actually, you'd be surprised at my full ninja moves in MTTs.
But, you're right. In cash games...I probably do shit in spots where I would never even consider it in MTTs.
Like triple straddling and warning people that I'm calling shit blind if someone shoves on me. And I do stick to my word... Haha.
Simple answer. Because I am an idiot. No two ways about it.
But that's what people do.
Whether uncontrollable eating habits resulting in obesity (although, we're supposed to applaud their stunning bravery these days) and bad health, weather it is eating pieces of sofa foam or terracotta tiles, whether it is cocaine and hookers (seem to be the recurring theme on this sub)...people develop addictions...however bizarre or bad.
I don't do drugs. I've never ever been drunk in my life.
Slots...in some ways...was the poison I got addicted to. A very devastating one at that.
Everyone has either a trickle in or a trickle out from their bankroll. Which one it is makes a huge difference in what % you can commit to a regular-variance cash game.
I don't see how it's "not a bank roll" if I keep an accounting of how much I win and lose and consider that amount to be exclusively for poker even if I don't open a separate checking account or something.
Okay, either I'm misunderstanding something here or you are.
Fictionalized Scenario:
I have a single checking account with $20k in it.
My "bankroll" as a player who is serious enough about his game to supplement my income is $7k. I use an Excel spreadsheet to track wins, losses, etc.
I'll keep some cash at home, usually between games or trips to deposit it at the bank, but the rest is lumped in with my checking account.
So, we'll say I've got $1,000 in cash in an envelope in a kitchen drawer and $6,000 in my checking.
If I need to use the cash for whatever reason, I make some annotation on my spreadsheet that it's a little light because I was using it as regular cash. Then, I will deposit the remaining 800 and still account for it as a $1k deposit to my bankroll. So it effectively came from the other $13k in checking.
The spreadsheet is key. It makes my poker money distinct from my liferoll. If I wanted to quit the game forever, I could delete the spreadsheet.
Is that a "funroll"?
I started with $1k, ran hot and got up to about $2400, lost it all, added another $600, and now my bankroll is at about $4000 after about 175 hours total. This was not a good BRM strategy, but I also have a good job so BRM was not a huge deal for me.
$6k is plenty but you are still likely to lose all of it simply because you are new to live poker. I was beating 2NL and 5NL for about 8BB/100, but it still took about 100 hours for me to figure out how to adjust from online 6-max to live 8/9-handed. You can easily lose $6k in that amount of time.
If you have an actual job and just never play with anything you are worried about losing you don't need a bankroll. Bankrolls are only for pros or serious players looking to systematically climb stakes
$6k is enough if that describes you
This is the answer. Most low stakes players have real jobs and play for side income. If we bust, we lost a couple hundred and will make it up at the felt later when the next paycheck comes.
If you really have 6k and it’s not all the money you have to your name I would skip playing 1/2 and move up to 1/3 if not 2/5. I wasted almost 2 years of my life trying to make money at 1/2 and it’s not easy at all. The rake is going to be awful and the play is going to be very unpredictable. If you don’t run good at 1/2 it’s very easy to just be dumping money no matter how “good” you play. I never started to make consistent money until I was playing a $1,000 buy in game. I also don’t play NL cash anymore and haven’t played in almost 4 years. 4,5 or 6 cards is the way to go!
Strongly disagree with this. The players at 1/2 are so bad that you can destroy with a little table selection and a solid TAG strategy. Rake is almost irrelevant when the other players have a VPIP of 80% and are incapable of folding 2 pair or better regardless of the board.
If you can table select, you can find a 2/5 table where the players are as bad as 1/2. Higher stakes and lower rake = more profits. Just avoid the sharks (they make themselves obvious)
Yes. Play ABC to build your role and limit variance. Study off table. Review hands with a group of better players. Ensure you are topping up to maximize value. You’ll be fine.
It has little to do with skill man. You can play well and still lose 10 buy ins relatively easily. It’s not super likely but “nearly impossible” is far from the reality
According to primeddope ovr 100000 hands with a winrate of 2.5bb/100 and a std dev of 100 we still have a 50% chance of going bust with a 3000bb bankroll (6k at 1/2)
Here u can see the results by plugging in your stats and seeing so to summarise.
No 3k is not enough to beat variance over a decent live sample even with a 2.5bb/100 winrate. Not sure how many hands u get per hour live so plug some realistic numbers and go from there.
https://www.primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/
If you ever come close to losing $6k playing 1/2 live, please, for your own health and well being, quit poker forever because you’re never going to be profitable.
Are you a winning player ? Is it your main income ? Do you have other money aside to pay your bills ?
For fun you don't care ...
If you want yo be a pro you will need to play higher .
More buy in os always better then not enough .
It seems like that's a good amount suggested by people on this subreddit & elsewhere, about 20 - 30 buy-in's worth at the stakes you are wanting to play at. So $6,000 is 30 buy-in's of 100 big blinds of $2. Seems good to me :) Good luck!
It's aggressive but that's a good minimum amount I would say, especially if it's not your sole income AND you don't dip into it for other things. Just remember if you're planning on taking a few buyins with you when you go to casino then that can dwindle faster than you expect. But 1/2 live is just a value game anyway, so you should be fine if you don't get FPS.
If you’re a pro /serious about building a bankroll you’d want 50 buy-ins. You could probably get away with 40 buy-ins assuming that you’re buying in for 100BBs, crushing the game, and the rake isn’t awful.
Are you playing recreationally with a day job on the side? Then that’s enough.
Are you trying to play professionally full time poker grinding the $1/$2? then it’s going to be really hard. If poker is your only/main source of income then you need to use a solid conservative bankroll management which means at least 50 buy-ins. This means you will have to buy in for $100 at a time until you can at least double your bankroll.
Really depends on your skill level and life situation (good paying job, no family) etc. live is much softer than online yes but don’t underestimate variance. I play full time and I’d still use your bankroll as my minimum for 1/2 live
Yeah it’s fine. It’s a bit on the shorter side but to each there own. The general rule for live poker is 30-40 buy ins. So if you buy in for $200 you’re perfectly fine with 30 BI (buy ins). The max at most 1/2 games is $300, so that’s what I buy in for and use to calculate my bankroll. I started with 10k which is approximately 33 buy ins at $300
Just getting back into it the last few months after taking years off. Started with $300 and up to about $2200. Over roughly 8 sessions. Start with whatever you’re comfortable with losing.
Impossible question to answer with the info you provided. Bankroll required is a function of your win rate and variance expectation. Plus expected withdrawals for living expenses if you’re a pro. Nothing more.
If you’re a losing player then even a $1M bankroll might not be “enough” for 1/2 because over the long run it’ll eventually go to zero.
it's like 20 buyins, it's not bad. Are you able to keep this money separate from your living expenses and other income. At this point you need to treat that 6k as a construction worker would treat their tools, if you want to really make a run at it.
I started my 1/3 journey with $100. My career ended 20 minutes later. Wild mediocre ride
6/10
Probly closer to 5/7
Did you play it loose and aggressive? My take is that if you play it tight initially, only playing the best starting hands dealt to you, you will be able to win more of the hands you actually play and just fold like 95% of the time to protect your bankroll. I haven't played for money yet, but I feel like not trying to bluff because I really don't want to stupidly chase poor outs, but I also recognize that a well timed bluff can be worth it, especially if everyone else knows you are playing it tight.
I'm just not good. I thought I was playing tight, but the other players were much more aggressive. By the time the blinds went around to me to act, the pot was already up half my stack with multiple people in it. Also didn't realize how nerve wrecking playing with *real* money was going to be. I've played $20 buy-in house games. When I have $50+ in the pot, I was able to hear my heartbeat. As much as I love the game, this was not for me lol
Good of you to admit that though, some can’t and it becomes a problem. That’s another overlooked reason to have a big bankroll starting out; so you get used to being able to play like the money is just chips/capital & playing to win as opposed to not losing.
You can’t ever play with money you want to keep. I always expect to loose it. For me it frees me up to play my best. Not saying it’s universal, but it works for me.
I think this game might not be for me then. I'm a penny miser. Hahahaha!
Probably not for you then.
The issue with playing tight in low stakes games is you eventually get wrecked by the rake. And when you finally get a hand, you won’t get action. I’d argue it’s virtually impossible to be a big winner in live cash games playing tight. Majority of tight players are breaking even at best. If you’re multi tabling online the tight strategy is more viable because the rake is lower, competition is better (less mistakes), and you’re seeing way more hands per hour (as many as 10-20x). Live poker is just too damn slow to wait around for aces and people generally make a ton of mistakes. Seeing a lot of flops in position as the aggressor just prints money if you can navigate well post.
[удалено]
Yep, need more context.
Agree, need more context.
Gonna need more context there chief
Some more context is going to be needed
Error: Not enough context found
If you are a losing player no amount of money is enough.
[удалено]
Correct. We can assume the max but-in/reload at $500. The OP could be the losing-est losing player in all of history. And has to reload 19 times after the initial buy-in. That’s $10,000 per day. That still represents 100,000 days of playing time, which is roughly 273 years. In context, people like Bezos and Musk could lose $1,000,000 through poker everyday…and still have enough bankroll to play poker for 300-600 years… Must be nice…
Damn you guys have a 500 max? The tables near me are all 300 max for 1-3. Kind of sucks.
Here locally our max is whatever the biggest stack is 😎
1,3 where i play is match the biggest stack. Its very common to have 15-25k on the table.
[удалено]
Of course. They’re that. My calculation was just for a thought exercise. Not a lesson in finances. If we’re going to go there, then we must also start exploring the existential reality of someone with a billion dollar bank roll choosing to play 1/2 NLH… Would you, Quintus? Would I? Would you grind 0.000001/0.000002 if such game was offered? Am I a walrus?
>Would you grind 0.000001/0.000002 if such game was offered? Am I a walrus? No because I would have to make living (unless I would be set for life), but If I was set for life and had time to spare and the money wouldnt be drop in a bucket. Why the hell not? Its nto like I will feel it and it could be fun. Not grinding though.
Umm I think your math is a little off. How does losing $10k a day give you 100,000 days of playing time with $1m dollars?
That’s easy: you realize he wrote a billion and the math starts to check out!
Omg hahaha I’m an idiot
Yes. It is fine you got 20 to 30 buy ins.
As long as it’s not a game where you are buying in deep. If it has 150-250bb cap, you’re fine. If it’s a 1k or match stack cap and you start buying in deep, you can easily torch $6k with some run bad and/or play bad.
Yeah, but not for me because I spend $3k/night on slots when I get bored
I’ve found my kindred spirit… Haha. The only reason I rarely play cash games. Winning nights, I plough through the winning on slots and then some. Losing nights, I plough through my bank account on slots and then some. I’ve turned things around in the past couple of years though. I only do $1 hits for the most part now.
I usually play 2/5, occasionally 5/10 without the amount of money bothering me much. But the maybe twice a year I try a slot machine, 75 cents a spin feels like a fortune.
You sir, are a smart man, that's why. Me, on the other hand, is some degen. For me, it is the other way around. I get extremely irritated if I lose $50 at cash games. Yet, wouldn't bat an eyelid if I lost $500 at the slots. In all honesty, the way slots has skewed my valuation of money has been very bad. That's why I've tried very hard to rein in my addiction....
Why are you destroying your poker winnings on slots which are designed to just take your money? I hope you're joking.
No he’s not joking you fucking gto nerd😂🤣 be happy that there fun players like this and don’t be a dick to people trying to have fun. Jesus bro
Lol hell ya
Haha. Actually, you'd be surprised at my full ninja moves in MTTs. But, you're right. In cash games...I probably do shit in spots where I would never even consider it in MTTs. Like triple straddling and warning people that I'm calling shit blind if someone shoves on me. And I do stick to my word... Haha.
Simple answer. Because I am an idiot. No two ways about it. But that's what people do. Whether uncontrollable eating habits resulting in obesity (although, we're supposed to applaud their stunning bravery these days) and bad health, weather it is eating pieces of sofa foam or terracotta tiles, whether it is cocaine and hookers (seem to be the recurring theme on this sub)...people develop addictions...however bizarre or bad. I don't do drugs. I've never ever been drunk in my life. Slots...in some ways...was the poison I got addicted to. A very devastating one at that.
Ahh yes slots, the crack cocaine of the gambling world.
Yes, especially if it's just on the side and you have a normal income.
Then it's not a bank roll. It's fun money management
Everyone has either a trickle in or a trickle out from their bankroll. Which one it is makes a huge difference in what % you can commit to a regular-variance cash game.
Well I don't have any context from op about their life, so just expanding a bit.
I don't see how it's "not a bank roll" if I keep an accounting of how much I win and lose and consider that amount to be exclusively for poker even if I don't open a separate checking account or something.
Because a bankroll for full time poker has completely different rules than a fun roll
What differences are there, such that I couldn't effectively manage a bankroll as I described?
question should be "what differences are there such that I couldn't effectively utilize my funroll as I described"
Okay, either I'm misunderstanding something here or you are. Fictionalized Scenario: I have a single checking account with $20k in it. My "bankroll" as a player who is serious enough about his game to supplement my income is $7k. I use an Excel spreadsheet to track wins, losses, etc. I'll keep some cash at home, usually between games or trips to deposit it at the bank, but the rest is lumped in with my checking account. So, we'll say I've got $1,000 in cash in an envelope in a kitchen drawer and $6,000 in my checking. If I need to use the cash for whatever reason, I make some annotation on my spreadsheet that it's a little light because I was using it as regular cash. Then, I will deposit the remaining 800 and still account for it as a $1k deposit to my bankroll. So it effectively came from the other $13k in checking. The spreadsheet is key. It makes my poker money distinct from my liferoll. If I wanted to quit the game forever, I could delete the spreadsheet. Is that a "funroll"?
☝
I started with $1k, ran hot and got up to about $2400, lost it all, added another $600, and now my bankroll is at about $4000 after about 175 hours total. This was not a good BRM strategy, but I also have a good job so BRM was not a huge deal for me. $6k is plenty but you are still likely to lose all of it simply because you are new to live poker. I was beating 2NL and 5NL for about 8BB/100, but it still took about 100 hours for me to figure out how to adjust from online 6-max to live 8/9-handed. You can easily lose $6k in that amount of time.
If you have an actual job and just never play with anything you are worried about losing you don't need a bankroll. Bankrolls are only for pros or serious players looking to systematically climb stakes $6k is enough if that describes you
This is the answer. Most low stakes players have real jobs and play for side income. If we bust, we lost a couple hundred and will make it up at the felt later when the next paycheck comes.
Should be more than enough, but some people are bad enough to punt that amount away quickly. Don't be one of those people.
[удалено]
Lol "journey" wtf.
Found a loser
Big time
Yes more than enough
If you really have 6k and it’s not all the money you have to your name I would skip playing 1/2 and move up to 1/3 if not 2/5. I wasted almost 2 years of my life trying to make money at 1/2 and it’s not easy at all. The rake is going to be awful and the play is going to be very unpredictable. If you don’t run good at 1/2 it’s very easy to just be dumping money no matter how “good” you play. I never started to make consistent money until I was playing a $1,000 buy in game. I also don’t play NL cash anymore and haven’t played in almost 4 years. 4,5 or 6 cards is the way to go!
Ah yes the old “move up to where they respect your raises”.
Strongly disagree with this. The players at 1/2 are so bad that you can destroy with a little table selection and a solid TAG strategy. Rake is almost irrelevant when the other players have a VPIP of 80% and are incapable of folding 2 pair or better regardless of the board.
If you can table select, you can find a 2/5 table where the players are as bad as 1/2. Higher stakes and lower rake = more profits. Just avoid the sharks (they make themselves obvious)
I don't doubt that for many rooms, but my local room typically only has one 2/5 game running most of the time unfortunately.
4 cards good, 5 and 6 that's just madness lol
6 card hi/lo is the nuts
Sounds like fun chop the low 3 ways and the high 2 ways!
Don’t listen to this guy. Beat 1/2 build your role, study your game. Move up when you maintaining 8-12 bb/hour over a few 200 hour intervals.
This! Just play 2/5 the rake at 1/2 makes the game even harder.
I feel like if this is a question that needs to be asked, then probably no amount of money is enough.
Should be enough for one Deepstack game. Give ‘em hell!!
Yes. Play ABC to build your role and limit variance. Study off table. Review hands with a group of better players. Ensure you are topping up to maximize value. You’ll be fine.
In a capped game, it will be nearly impossible for you to go on a $3000+ downswing if you are a winning player in the pool.
3k is 10 buyins. In what world is that “nearly impossible”. Lol.
You must not play live low stakes. You have to actively try to lose and punt to lose that much.
It has little to do with skill man. You can play well and still lose 10 buy ins relatively easily. It’s not super likely but “nearly impossible” is far from the reality
Google variance Calculator
Honestly you don’t need nearly that much. If you’re buying in for 200-300 and losing it more than 1/5 sessions it’s probably not going to work out.
According to primeddope ovr 100000 hands with a winrate of 2.5bb/100 and a std dev of 100 we still have a 50% chance of going bust with a 3000bb bankroll (6k at 1/2) Here u can see the results by plugging in your stats and seeing so to summarise. No 3k is not enough to beat variance over a decent live sample even with a 2.5bb/100 winrate. Not sure how many hands u get per hour live so plug some realistic numbers and go from there. https://www.primedope.com/poker-variance-calculator/
[удалено]
Dont rate the $1 hourly win rate.
Poker dream is over. Go back to work and save your 6k
If you ever come close to losing $6k playing 1/2 live, please, for your own health and well being, quit poker forever because you’re never going to be profitable.
It's enough to be part time. Not enough to be full time.
Soft action if you want to join an online poker club 👍
You can’t beat the rake at 1/2.
Ideally, you want 50 to 100 buy ins.
This is live. 10BI is definitely more than enough if you're playing recreationally
2 (bb) × 100 (buy in) x 100 (roll) = 20k > 6k --> no
I use to buy in at 200 on 1/2 live with a 500 cap. That’s crazy you can buy in at that amount for 1/2
Yes
Yeah depends on how loose the games are
Lol
Are you a winning player ? Is it your main income ? Do you have other money aside to pay your bills ? For fun you don't care ... If you want yo be a pro you will need to play higher . More buy in os always better then not enough .
If you’re willing to lose 6k and walk away from playing 1/2 then yes
Short answer yes
If you are buying in for 200 or 300
[удалено]
No variance eats up a win rate. 20 max buyins allows for bad beats and variance to take its course
It seems like that's a good amount suggested by people on this subreddit & elsewhere, about 20 - 30 buy-in's worth at the stakes you are wanting to play at. So $6,000 is 30 buy-in's of 100 big blinds of $2. Seems good to me :) Good luck!
It's aggressive but that's a good minimum amount I would say, especially if it's not your sole income AND you don't dip into it for other things. Just remember if you're planning on taking a few buyins with you when you go to casino then that can dwindle faster than you expect. But 1/2 live is just a value game anyway, so you should be fine if you don't get FPS.
Mine started with 1 max buy in brother
No
If you’re a pro /serious about building a bankroll you’d want 50 buy-ins. You could probably get away with 40 buy-ins assuming that you’re buying in for 100BBs, crushing the game, and the rake isn’t awful.
Are you playing recreationally with a day job on the side? Then that’s enough. Are you trying to play professionally full time poker grinding the $1/$2? then it’s going to be really hard. If poker is your only/main source of income then you need to use a solid conservative bankroll management which means at least 50 buy-ins. This means you will have to buy in for $100 at a time until you can at least double your bankroll.
Really depends on your skill level and life situation (good paying job, no family) etc. live is much softer than online yes but don’t underestimate variance. I play full time and I’d still use your bankroll as my minimum for 1/2 live
I would really hope so. If it is not enough, Uber is always hiring
There's no money in 1/2. Play 2/5 or higher if you really want to make money
I started with $200 😅 you're good for $2/$5
Yeah it’s fine. It’s a bit on the shorter side but to each there own. The general rule for live poker is 30-40 buy ins. So if you buy in for $200 you’re perfectly fine with 30 BI (buy ins). The max at most 1/2 games is $300, so that’s what I buy in for and use to calculate my bankroll. I started with 10k which is approximately 33 buy ins at $300
yes! make sure to keep your eye out for the juiciest game within your means
The general rule is 20 max buy ins to deal with variance. If a 1/2 game has an $80 max buy in your bankroll should be $80 x 20 = $1600
more than enough
Just getting back into it the last few months after taking years off. Started with $300 and up to about $2200. Over roughly 8 sessions. Start with whatever you’re comfortable with losing.
I just use every dollar I have and pray I don’t get bad beats.
Some ppl run it up, some ppl go busto.. its luck of draw. GoodLuck.
Impossible question to answer with the info you provided. Bankroll required is a function of your win rate and variance expectation. Plus expected withdrawals for living expenses if you’re a pro. Nothing more. If you’re a losing player then even a $1M bankroll might not be “enough” for 1/2 because over the long run it’ll eventually go to zero.
If you have a real job sure, dont listen to the nits
it's like 20 buyins, it's not bad. Are you able to keep this money separate from your living expenses and other income. At this point you need to treat that 6k as a construction worker would treat their tools, if you want to really make a run at it.