A Quick Look Back and Ahead

[shipitfish]

In my almost no-existent spare time, I've been teaching one of my new co-workers how to play poker. One of the first lessons I gave him was about bankroll requirements of various games. He insisted on starting with NL HE rather than limit HE, and I pointed out the difficulties of bankroll at NL games. He's starting, however, with a $10 max-buy-in NL online, which I think works ok with a $1,000 bankroll for a new player. That's actually somewhat conservative (100 buy-ins). But, with a conservative requirement, I am sure he won't go broke, even if he plays badly at first, and he'll have a good experience.

I was pointing this issue out to a friend at lunch today, who laughed at me when I finished the story with: "I wouldn't want anyone to start playing not understanding bankroll requirements for the game you're playing". The reason he laughed was because, just one year ago, he was the one who staked me when I lost my measly $500 bankroll playing $3/$6 and $4/$8 limit HE. He staked me $2,400 -- a reasonable bankroll for $3/$6 and $4/$8, and in the end I paid him off to the tune of $688.55 over a period of 5 months, an effective APR of 5.5%.

I can hardly imagine that I once played poker without the concepts of adequate bankroll requirements. Yet, just one year ago, almost a year into my attempt at "serious poker", I was just learning what bankroll I really needed to survive the luck factor. At the time, I barely understood concepts like "reverse implied odds" and "underdog if called" that are ingrained enough in my thinking now that I can even debate their veracity.

As I continue to operate on my current "tiny" bankroll of $1,200 or so, I recall that even if I once had $10,000 around, and was playing at $10/$20 and $15/$30, my poker play has afforded me great things. (That statement sounds more like Hellmuth's "I'm blessed" crap than I care to acknowledge, but the point is valid.) I got countless trips to casino resorts, wonderful memories of Greg's game (where I doubt I ever actually had much of an edge), and a great apartment I couldn't have otherwise afforded. Even after all that, I'm still in the action, with just some work to do to rebuild myself from the "mortal sin" of recreational poker (taking from the bankroll for "real world" expenses).

I had of course forgotten what a grind the low limits can be. I had forgotten that chasing deposit bonuses on online sites is a profitable way to build bankroll. (When a bonus is 25% of your bankroll, it's worth taking a look!) But it's kind of fun to do it all again from scratch. I am, however, quite sure that I will not want to do this again. I'm having fun again, when I actually get time to play with the new job, but I'd really like to level off at $5/$10 limit and $200 buy-in NL and get comfortable a while, instead of moving up immediately when I reached the next level of adequate bankroll. I guess this time, while I didn't go broke but did take a hard hit, I learned that I should factor in the possibility of wanting to do a non-poker thing with the money I earn from the game. Once I level off, I plan to factor in some monthly "take" from my bankroll into my real world expenses, lest I be forced to drop down limits again.

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

If you have a job you should just invest the money into playing higher limit poker if you think you can beat the game. It is silly to spend time playing $1/2 when you have the money around and the skill to beat the higher games. It is an exponential problem, too-- if you spend like the next year playing like $1/2 and $2/4 you will have enough to play $5/10, let's say and be making $10 an hour or whatever. But had you been playing $5/10 or $10/20 the whole time, $10 or $20 an hour and at the end of the year you can bump up and be making $40 or $50 an hour or whatever. It is an extra year of 'loss' due to draconian bankroll requirements imposed on yourself. And it mounts up.

You would think nothing of taking your money and sticking it in a mutual fund or something to grow it. Investing in your poker playing ability is the same thing. You are wasting your time playing $1/2 if you have money around you can play higher limits with and costing yourself money.

$1,000 for the $10 max buy in is a ridiculously large amount. I forget where I saw it, somewhere on 2+2, but they were recommending 20 buy ins for a limit. Of course if your friend knows jack about poker, a million buy ins isn't going to be enough until he learns how to play properly. I am wary to get anybody into poker, simply because while it seems easy to become a winning player, in reality it is a lot more difficult and requires a lot more self-discipline and knowledge to beat the games than is readily apparent at first. I don't know about you, but I have spent an enormous amount of time thinking about, writing about, reading about and playing poker in the past few years. And I am still only a mediocre player. 90% of the people you see playing poker don't beat the games, but almost all of them think they do. Getting someone involved in poker is just putting a bunch of responsibility on yourself for another person's financial well-being. My advice now to everyone is to "not get involved" whenever they find out I play cards.

It seems fun and innocent and cool to be teaching someone until one of the people you get into playing cards completely destroys their life with it. Then you will understand why you should just tell people not to play. 90% of the people are suckers in the games, and more likely than not if you get someone playing, they are going to be a sucker. And some of those suckers go broke broke. All the way broke. Bank account draining broke. Sucks to do that to a friend. So just save yourself some hassle and tell them not to get involved and that it is a brutal, frustrating game.