Mental bankroll framework

YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
edited January 2017 in General Concepts
0lk8lv46ufce.png

Thought I would share how I have been thinking about bankroll. It has helped me a lot over the last few months. I find it extremely useful to imagine my bankroll as spectrum relative to the stake that I am playing instead of a static requirement. I have played just about every point on this spectrum at one time or another and felt the effects.

Moving below +/- 30 buy-ins causes me to alter my game and become very risk averse. I start to lose in non-showdown pots. I am more easily bluffed. I bluff less. If I trend into the orange/red I move down a limit. I used to keep playing. If I ever reached red I would generally lose it all. From around 30 to 50 in the yellow/green is generally decent poker, but still somewhat tentative and cautious. From around 50-80 bright green/blue is my sweet spot. This is where I feel I play my absolute best. Aggressive and creative actions come easy. I generally feel in control. Take shots at the next level if playing well. Getting above around 80 in the purple/red starts to feel a bit over-rolled. As a result play sometimes becomes sloppy and/or fancy. Focus can slip. Creativity can suffer. Time to move up.

None of these thresholds are fixed. They all blend together. I understand that this is all a mental trick, but the on table effects of where you fall in this spectrum can be very real.
br.png 12.1K

Comments

  • volcanovolcano Red Chipper Posts: 346 ✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Im always on the verge of broke- But I put that out of my mind and crush poker consistently. It gets scary sometimes.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭✭
    volcano wrote: »
    Im always on the verge of broke- But I put that out of my mind and crush poker consistently. It gets scary sometimes.

    If you crush poker, how come your always on the verge of being broke ?
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    Yosh wrote: »
    0lk8lv46ufce.png
    Moving below +/- 30 buy-ins causes me to alter my game and become very risk averse. I start to lose in non-showdown pots. I am more easily bluffed. I bluff less.


    kagey wrote: »

    Very funny.

    I just posted on the Behavioral Economics thread about Expected Value and places where Expected Utility may be taken into account within the game as an overall view of expected value.

    Then I read this thread and found an example of what I talked about.

    So here is an example of the lessons of behavioral economics can give us insight into poker. @Yosh think about this with @colldav .

    And I assume you are near broke because you use your poker bankroll for non-poker things. I think you need to establish a firm separation between Church and State for a little while and not use your Church bankroll to buy State pork.
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    @Imperator I stumbled on the math and robots thread in October and it is actually the reason I signed up for RCP. Thank you for beginning that discussion.

    I currently play poker as a hobby, with a real hope that it might supplement my income in a meaningful way. I am not a purist, mostly because I can't afford to be. I started online at .10/.25. My plan was to play online and move up until my bankroll could afford me a level of comfort at 1/2 live. I did reach that goal last month and have since played 3 times at the Sands.

    There's an idea in the math and robots thread that @Christian Soto called "dollar pressure". I can say with certainty that this is a real phenomenon. A buy-in is no longer a trip to the movies, it's a trip to the grocery store. I feel it, and I'm certain that others do as well.

    In my house, the money is kept separate however the State budget is primary. I have obligations and mouths to feed. If the Church budget goes dry, it is not possible to top it off from the general fund. Usually an event like this would force me to start back at the bottom of the ladder playing for dimes and quarters. This is why my place on the bankroll spectrum has the unpleasant ability to affect my play as I mentioned above. Understanding and acknowledging that has been very helpful to me.

    Lastly, the vast majority of my experience has been online, where I had the luxury of cutting my teeth however low I wanted to play. I would imagine that live players feel this bankroll effect immensely, since they can't choose to play any lower than 1/2 where the money is already very "real".

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    Yosh wrote: »
    @Imperator I stumbled on the math and robots thread in October and it is actually the reason I signed up for RCP. Thank you for beginning that discussion.

    @Yosh, that is a very nice compliment and I thank you for it.
    Yosh wrote: »
    There's an idea in the math and robots thread that @Christian Soto called "dollar pressure". I can say with certainty that this is a real phenomenon.

    The "pain threshold" and "dollar pressure" concepts were something I learned from those threads my self. I think at this point it is a specialty concept on the Red Chip forum. We owe this compliment to the top pair @Christian Soto and @Matt Berkey .
    Have you considered trying to find home games where they might be willing to play .50/1 NLHE? This might help you get more live experience and might help to build your bankroll. Sometimes it is hard to find these "fun" games but I know that they are around.

    Yosh wrote: »
    My plan was to play online and move up until my bankroll could afford me a level of comfort at 1/2 live. I did reach that goal last month and have since played 3 times at the Sands.

    Congratulations on that. I haven't been to the Sands in quite a long time. But I plan to get back there. You may have noticed that there are a few other Red Chippers who play there, @ZacShaw and @Faustovaldez123 among them. You might post on the forum when you are going and maybe one of us can meet you there.
  • LeonardLeonard Red Chipper Posts: 249 ✭✭
    I'll take the other end. I think I actually play better on a shorter roll. Disclaimer, I do not play for a living, nor do I rely on poker for income.

    That may play a part in it but when I have a shorter roll, it motivates me to play better and concentrate. Generally the more my "poker bankroll" was the "I don't really care" attitude came in.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    I'll write a little about the Kelly Criterion for Bank Roll management elsewhere. I want to get how it relates to expected value vs expected utility.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file