---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by WiltOnTilt (Micro/Small Stakes)

Hey Wilt. I've been playing with the bankroll simulator and I wonder if having a large relative bankroll (# BIs) can be detrimental to your poker success at the low to midstakes.

Assuming you have good tilt control and you are a winning player (both substantial assumptions), having a 1kBB (lhe player) restriction means moving up is very slow. However, if you have a 500BB/level restriction allows you to move up quickly and make more money. I was just leaving it at the 1BB WR and 20BB SD. In fact, it even looks reasonable to have a 300BB BR and just be very willing to move down.

Would you say that a willingness to drop down would counteract a lot of the need for a larger bankroll, especially for a recreational player? I have seen similar things posted on 2p2 in the LHE forums advocating 300BB BRs (or less) for 6max as a way to optimally grow your BR, basically solved for from the Kelly Criterion using either the 1/2 or quarter kelly.

Of course, once you make it to the high stakes, you should then have a large bankroll in order to prevent yourself from needing to move down.

A similar thing happens when I try NL numbers (though I am not really a NL player). I would compare 20Bi to 50Bi and you'll see that you can grow a BR much faster with 20Bis and you can't really go broke as long as you're willing to move down. Tilt control obv. makes this key.

I guess I'm asking basically, if I have good tilt control, independent of the money, would you recommend I use a small BR?

Thanks for this Wilt, I would have liked if you covered cashing out strategy in detail, but maybe that could be another video?

I generally have a strategy of 100-50-25BI for the games I play spread over different stakes. I usually play 100NL and mix in 200 and 400NL games when I have more fish, 1 or more fish for playing 200NL and 2 or more fish for playing 400NL, what are you thoughts on playing across multiple stakes?

Hey Wilt. I've been playing with the bankroll simulator and I wonder if having a large relative bankroll (# BIs) can be detrimental to your poker success at the low to midstakes.

Assuming you have good tilt control and you are a winning player (both substantial assumptions), having a 1kBB (lhe player) restriction means moving up is very slow. However, if you have a 500BB/level restriction allows you to move up quickly and make more money. I was just leaving it at the 1BB WR and 20BB SD. In fact, it even looks reasonable to have a 300BB BR and just be very willing to move down.

Would you say that a willingness to drop down would counteract a lot of the need for a larger bankroll, especially for a recreational player? I have seen similar things posted on 2p2 in the LHE forums advocating 300BB BRs (or less) for 6max as a way to optimally grow your BR, basically solved for from the Kelly Criterion using either the 1/2 or quarter kelly.

Of course, once you make it to the high stakes, you should then have a large bankroll in order to prevent yourself from needing to move down.

A similar thing happens when I try NL numbers (though I am not really a NL player). I would compare 20Bi to 50Bi and you'll see that you can grow a BR much faster with 20Bis and you can't really go broke as long as you're willing to move down. Tilt control obv. makes this key.

I guess I'm asking basically, if I have good tilt control, independent of the money, would you recommend I use a small BR?

Yes you bring up very good points. I think I would file these ideas under the ability to rebuild your roll outside of poker. The lower the stakes you play, the more easily you can rebuild outside of poker from your job. The difference might be that someone who is a CEO of a company might be able to easily replenish a 5/10NL bankroll or a 100/200 LHE bankroll if he goes broke (and therefore can have a higher ROR and smaller bankroll) however the same might only apply for a guy who works at mcdonalds and plays 10c/25c NL or 5c/10c LHE etc.

Also, as you mentioned, being willing to move down is crucial as well. It's sort of like that slide where I was taking about mental strength, and the better your mental strength and the more you dont mind bouncing all over the place in stakes, the smaller of a roll you can handle. Some people just get their ego so tied up they think they are too good to play below X stakes and therefore don't move down and put themselves into jeopardy.

I will certainly bless you to have a smaller roll if you can easily rebuild from means outside of poker and/or you are willing to move down when necessary (as well as realizing that you're taking on a higher risk of ruin). It's all about the ability to stay in the action and not lose out on earning potential.

WoT

Thanks for this Wilt, I would have liked if you covered cashing out strategy in detail, but maybe that could be another video?

I generally have a strategy of 100-50-25BI for the games I play spread over different stakes. I usually play 100NL and mix in 200 and 400NL games when I have more fish, 1 or more fish for playing 200NL and 2 or more fish for playing 400NL, what are you thoughts on playing across multiple stakes?

I think this sounds totally reasonable.

I haven't put a lot of deep thought into cash out strategy, but I'd say trying to leave yourself a minimum roll of X buyins where you're comfortable with the idea of moving down to the lower stake to keep that # of buyins in tact. So it might be a working roll of 100bi for your main game, and at 75 buyins for your main game you drop down, if you keep losing then drop down at another 75 buyins for the game below that, etc

You have to think of your roll as at a specific state each time before you play and accept what sort of risk you're under.

Hopefully most pros have enough $ offline to live for at least 6 months without touching their roll. I realize that isn't always easy for those who are playing smaller stakes, but that's the goal we should be working towards.

WoT

awesome awesome vid, definitely needed this, would have liked a little more focus on limit tho =/

same here and would also be interested on some thoughts about BR management in 7/8 game.

Great video. I have one question. I am playing micro stakes at the moment and im wondering if you think that you should have MORE of a bankroll when multitableing 9 tables?
On my biggest losing days i lose around 5-10 buyins and on my biggest winning days i win from 10-15 buyins. And normal days it varies from 1-5 buyin swings

edit: i play a very aggro style inspired by Jay ) lots of threebet in poss with A/x suited etc

Great video. I have one question. I am playing micro stakes at the moment and im wondering if you think that you should have MORE of a bankroll when multitableing 9 tables?
On my biggest losing days i lose around 5-10 buyins and on my biggest winning days i win from 10-15 buyins. And normal days it varies from 1-5 buyin swings

edit: i play a very aggro style inspired by Jay ) lots of threebet in poss with A/x suited etc

assuming you can keep the same winrate, more tables shouldn't increase your variance but just to make sure you can have enough $ on the site to properly be on plenty of tables and wait lists to always be looking for the best games, you might need some extra $ in your account you wouldn't otherwise. Plus, the psychological aspect of having 1/3 of your roll on the tables (if you have 30 buyins or so) might be too much to bear, so erroring on the side of a bigger bankroll would probably be smart.

you could be grinding to appease your g-friend.... or you could be a girl grinding to appease your boyfriend
or you could be a girl grinding to appease your girlfriend!
haha classic!

Wowsers.

I want to never ever ever ever complain about running bad ever again. Try playing with the simulator on the looser end of the SD.

http://www.evplusplus.com/site_media/images/variance/wr_5.00_sd_130.00_nruns_100_nhands_1000000_False_mA48YX.png SD 130 WR 5bb/100 1M hands.

Top winner ~ 850bi's
Lowest ~ 40 bi's

60% of players with those stats go on a -60bi downswing

20% of players with those stats go on a -80bi downswing

Longest breakeven stretch 412k hands.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Great video WoT.

The variance graphs were so terrifying, I nearly quit poker on the spot!

Seriously though, it's quite clear that even at small stakes the edge you have over regs is pretty thin and as you point out this becomes thinner and thinner as you move up. Fewer fish too.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs? Is poker 90% luck and 10% skill, for us day-to-day grinders?

It seems to me all but the luckiest and the supremely gifted, are ultimately going to find themselves hovering around break-even at best over their poker lifetime.

I can't wait to watch this now

Great video WoT.

The variance graphs were so terrifying, I nearly quit poker on the spot!

Seriously though, it's quite clear that even at small stakes the edge you have over regs is pretty thin and as you point out this becomes thinner and thinner as you move up. Fewer fish too.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs? Is poker 90% luck and 10% skill, for us day-to-day grinders?

This vid has a delicate balance to it. On one hand, I don't want to depress people and make it sound like the only way to win is by running hot, but on the other hand I don't want people to sit back and say "oh well WoT said theres a lot of variance so my downswing probably isn't related to bad play"

I'm not sure I can say what % is luck vs skill, and even though some of those graphs were menacing the cream still does rise to the top generally. Even if I could put a % on it, I'm not so sure it would be that useful? We obviously know there is some of each, just by watching any of the vids by the instructors here we can see them outplaying people but also see them get sucked out on etc.

I focused on some of the outlier cases (guys at the way top and way bottom). Certainly on any given hand, luck plays a huge factor but as our samples get bigger, it does "even out" somewhat. The problem is that the long run is just so much longer than people realize and I hope that came through in the video.

So my question is how much does your edge and skill really count, bearing in mind the variance simulator graphs?

I suppose the way you could test this out would be fiddling with the standard deviation and the winrate numbers to see. Most of us will not be one of the outliers, so it is supremely important for us to scrap for every pot and make our disciplined folds and do all we can to increase our skill level. If we are somewhere in the middle along that dashed expectation line, then it becomes very important to increase our skill as much as possible. Also notice how important our mental stability must be. If we slip and aren't playing on our A game, thus causing our theoretical winrate to drop, just think of what awful things that does to the simulators!

It seems to me all but the luckiest and the supremely gifted, are ultimately going to find themselves hovering around break-even at best over their poker lifetime.

I understand how you could say this, but I don't think it's true. Yes variance has a big role, even after 100s of thousands of hands but it's not the only part. Most of us won't be those outliers (even though we feel like it) and being "supremely gifted" is a large part of just working hard. Keep in mind in those graphs, the dashed black line is the expected value line, not the break even line. There are a lot of guys chunked around there. Most of us will be in there and therefore need to do our best to increase that theoretical winrate and reduce those swings by outplaying everyone in our path!

I'm so glad I watched this video, learned quite a bit and found evplusplus. Wilt, you're the man.

Great video, Just been running some numbers interesting. Sure do need to up my winrate to stop risk of ruin.

Wow, that video officially scared the shit out of me.