Avoiding thin spots when bankroll is low?

jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
edited January 2017 in Live Poker Hands
$1-3 hero V ($265) to start the hand. Hero has aggressive image. 3 limps V opens to $28 (wayyyyyy larger than I've seen him open before, he showed down with KK and his open was $17). I think it's actually like JJ-88 and he just wants the limps. :As:Kd in the blinds for hero. I 3 bet to $120. He jams. I say man...can I ever fold this pre? Let me see an ace so I can even contemplate a fold. He doesn't look happy. I call, he says "man, your good" flop comes with a 10 he says "nevermind I got a set now" I never show but say I had kings. Point is, I ran the #'s and it's a +22 EV spot. I've been seeming to get in a lot of these thin EV spots recently at MGM since the game is so wild, and I've run the numbers every time and it's like +75 +65 +98 and I'm just losing my flips and my run-outs. I know in the long run these plays are good and winning, but when your bankroll is starting to run low, do you have to avoid these spots?
«1

Comments

  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    You could avoid it by flat-calling pre-flop.

    But, whether you should do that is entirely different.

    Your raise made sense. And your call made sense. It's variance at that point.
  • LeonardLeonard Red Chipper Posts: 249 ✭✭
    I'm going to try to answer this as best as I can.

    Just because the situation is +EV doesn't mean you have to take it.

    Sorry if the video is not appropriate for this site but please watch this.

    https://youtu.be/j32GvU4Uric

    He is one of Christian Soto's friends so I hope Red Chip doesn't mind.

    And in this thread,
    http://forum.redchippoker.com/discussion/5366/if-you-knew-you-were-55-vs-45-preflop-would-you-get-it-all-in#latest

    Yes, I get the math, it is plus EV to call. And by math only, you should.

    But in reality people play short rolled. Have you seen the Trooper? I bet most "pros" who attempt to grind for a living are always short rolled. If a 55 45 favorite situation occurs or its a "+22 EV" spot, don't take it if your individual situation doesn't allow for it.

    The one major takeaway I learned from the above YouTube Video, (actually I took his classes and his training videos) is that every individual persons' circumstance in life is different and it plays a major role in how they play.

    Why do you think OMC's play so different from the Internet Hoodie Kid? Because they are both at different points in life and have different risk tolerances, financial goals, poker goals, bankroll goals.

    Would the pain threshold strategy be ideal for a 70 year old OMC? Would it break him out of his comfort zone? Hell yes. Is it the best strategy for him? I don't know.

    So my point is, you should play a strategy that suits your own needs at whatever point you are in your life.

    As for myself, I am married, I have one kid, another on the way, and have two mortgages. And I live in Los Angeles. I can't afford to take shots at 5/T, T/20 because at that level, the money means way to much. I wouldn't think twice about folding if I played a 200BB pot at 5/T and was shown that I was a 55/45 or even a 60/40 favorite flip. Is that the incorrect math play. Yes but its correct for me.

    At 1/2 1/3 a shallow 2/5 game, no problem Ill take the 55/45 flip all day.

    If I was younger, not married, had no kids and lived in an inexpensive city like Las Vegas, yes, I'd be going to Solve for Why Academy and try to work my way up. But kids need to eat, housing needs to be paid, kids need school money and poker just isn't consistent enough income to live off of.
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
    Thanks @Leonard . I think this video is exactly what I needed to see. It's like...yeah it's the right play in the LONG run...but can I stand to lose these coin flips? I've seem to have lost like 8/10 this month for big pots 60/40 in my favor, 55/45 70/30 50/50 (losing 8 out of 10 isn't even that absurd) but it's really hurt my bank roll and my mentality (I've never been stuck this much in a month...I had to re-read Ed Miller's part in the course about mental toughness twice and I'm thinking about buying in the minimum and bringing a book and just waiting for premium to try to book like a $200-400 win, I did that last night but then the table was so loose and fishy I was like man I have to put more money on this table before these guys go busto. And then I flop top set on a 9 2 2 bet raise jam snap call board run out 2 2 he tosses his J J on the river but realizes he has quads J high then retrieves them from onto of the pot because it's not the muck I call floor it holds and get's to take the $650 with quads J high....just raw dog without a bag pain.
  • Doug HullDoug Hull RCP Coach Posts: 1,793 -
    Leonard wrote: »

    Sorry if the video is not appropriate for this site but please watch this.

    https://youtu.be/j32GvU4Uric

    He is one of Christian Soto's friends so I hope Red Chip doesn't mind.

    Blake is a friend of RCP in general, not just Soto. He puts out quality stuff, you should watch and buy more of it.
    Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
    Author Poker Plays You Can Use
    Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Haha I had a piece of Blake's Main Event - we swapped! He's chill.
  • BoilerAceBoilerAce Red Chipper Posts: 400 ✭✭
    This is a great time in my poker journey for this question to come up.
    There was point in time (pre Red Chip) that I assumed a raise meant KK or AA and there was no way that I was calling with AK. That goes back to Dan Harrington Tournament books. Then I met RedChip and loosened up a lot when converting to cash games....and now at "certain stakes" I will call with high suited connectors, AK off, AJ-AK, pairs sometimes, etc.

    I'm really stressing the "at certain stakes." Online 25NL, it's a no brainer....play loose. At my live $0.25 / $0.50 NL game, the same...I call raises with those hands. However, I started playing that way at $1/$3 NL at a casino and I lost 3 buyins of $200 each in about 2.5 hrs. Ugh There was one situation where I had Jc10c on the button and I mathematically had to call preflop after I called and it was 3bet after me. After the flop, the pot/implied odds got me all in . I didn't improve and lost to a set of Queens by the 3 better. It was then I realized the old me would have probably folded that preflop and not lost $200. I felt miserable and I don't feel that I can continue to play at higher stakes how I play at lower stakes....at least right now anyway.

    I'm going to hereby coin the term "Mental Bankroll." My Physical Bankroll ($$) can handle the financial ups and downs of $1/$3 NL. However, my "Mental Bankroll" is much less than my Physical Bankroll because losing a significant amount of money really bothers me, more-so than knowing that I made the correct play. Until I can improve/increase my Mental Bankroll, I'm going to snug up my game a bit at the casino and find more profitable EV spots instead doing what I'm always supposed to do mathematically.
  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    Yeah I dint mind releasing my 2nd or 3rd nut when money involved is way beyond my comfort level. Youre beat when youre beat and I dont like to find out with whole stack.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Leonard wrote: »

    Sorry if the video is not appropriate for this site but please watch this.

    https://youtu.be/j32GvU4Uric

    He is one of Christian Soto's friends so I hope Red Chip doesn't mind.

    And in this thread,
    http://forum.redchippoker.com/discussion/5366/if-you-knew-you-were-55-vs-45-preflop-would-you-get-it-all-in#latest

    Yes, I get the math, it is plus EV to call. And by math only, you should.

    How Much of Your Bankroll Should You Bet: Intertemporal Poker Bankroll Mangement

    There is actually a math behind all of this. It is not easy to apply to poker because we don't deal with a series of single identical bets but I will try to show how it applies to buy-ins. I maybe wrong.

    But both in probability theory and in management of portfolio choice there are formulas to deal with bankroll management. Blake makes some good points and perhaps he does know the math but since we are poker players we should use the math as much as possible.

    I will deal with this at length in the Behavioral Economics Thread but let me just state the formula here and why it works.

    Let us start with a situation from Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" where he is explaining Expected Value.....

    How Much of Your Whole Bank Roll?

    If you remember Sklansky gives the example of the coin toss. Let us say for your $1 bet someone offers you $2 on your coin toss of course you should take it. It is plus of course you have 50% equity on this coin toss. Of course it is +EV. And that is where most poker players leave it.

    But J. L. Kelley, who was working with Claude Shannon at Bell Labs and was thinking about Expected Value in probability theory asked the next question. How much of your bankroll should you risk on each coin flip?

    He said that on each bet you should take the Expected Value (.50) divided by the potential winnings for each bet in the series ($2.00 in this case) and bet that much of your bankroll. So if you have $1,000 in your bank roll you bet $250. If you lose you bet %25 of your bank roll on the next coin flip $187.50 and so on.

    I don't want to go through the math here but this strategy has been found to be the most optimal. And very few people seem to apply it. A good portfolio manager though will try to calculate these kinds of investments. It is not an exact science.

    It has become known as Kelly Criterion or the Kelley Bet. All of you should look it up.

    All of you should know J.L. Kelly because he was a close associate of the mathematician Ed Thorp who first developed the methods of card counting and wrote about it in Beat the Dealer. Thorp was also an associate of one of my favorite mathematicians Claude Shannon.

    In a famous incident Thorp, Shannon and Shannon's wife all went to Vegas together to "break the Roulette wheel" and play Black jack. They proved that with math and physics they could make money. But the question remained; If they could discover +EV plays for the Roulette wheel and for Black Jack how much of their collective bankroll should they risk? And that is the problem that the Kelly Criterion was designed to answer.

    Shannon, Thorp, and Kelly were not very much interested in investment or gambling. They didn't care so much about the money they made. They cared about systems they developed. They left their math to others to make money with. The Kelly Criterion was most famously adopted by Warren Buffet.

    But one more thing that we as poker players owe to Shannon, Kelly and Thorp is there own application of information theory to game theory. But that attempt is for another time.

    How Should Poker Players Apply the Kelly Criterion to Their Bankroll?

    My own poker bankroll has grown to an extent that I've been thinking about this. When should I risk buy-ins at $5-$10? When should I play more $2-$5? How long is it plus-EV to remain in $1-$2 and $1-$3 given my bankroll, etc.?

    I have been thinking about how to apply the Kelly Criterion to poker bankroll management. Below I just provide a hypothetical.

    First of all we have to be very honest about our expected winnings per-buy in over a course of time. The buy in is our investment per game and what we come home with per each buy in (not per hour) is the percent of our pay-off.

    In other words given an honest expectation of a 25% payoff for each dollar of a buy-in then I should be willing to loose over 20% of my bankroll over a long course of time for each buy-in. In other words I should not even reach my pain threshold until I reach a %20 loss of my total bankroll.

    If I have an expectation of a 12% payoff for each dollar of a buy in then I should be willing to risk 10% of my total bankroll.

    This may seem a lot to you but you have to realize that each time you lose a buy-in or win a buy-in you should actually recalculate your Kelly Criterion.

    But here is the problem with this reasoning. The Kelly Criterion was developed for a series of individual bets. Buffet uses it for portfolio management in general and discounts the investment with his own formula that treats the amount of the investment as a bet. So I am assuming that you can calculate percentages per buy-in over a course of time.

    Thus when you start out at higher buy-ins you have to try to estimate your potential gains and losses until you have a track-record over the long-run. Unfortunately, the long-run is never long enough. And you have to estimate your % per dollar of buy in and that takes a little more discounting and aggregating than hourly rate.

    Still I believe that probability theory shows that our pain threshold should be something like 3 or to 8 times higher than most of us usually put it. Except if you are crazy and want to risk everything all at once, which is what some people do in real life. But more of that on the Behavioral Economics thread.

    Please somebody chime in and tell me how I got all this wrong.

    P.S. Thanks for telling me about these Blake videos.
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Imperator wrote: »
    P.S. Thanks for telling me about these Blake videos.

    @Imperator

    Jerry, as it happens I am now working for Blake and the School of Cards/Beyond Tells team. We have been friends for years, and way back when I was a 'student' at SOC, and now I have the pleasure of working with him and his great staff.

    Blake's offices are located in NYC and I may be making weekly trips in to get work done. If you ever want to tag along and check the place out just drop me a line.

    cXt

    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,191 ✭✭✭✭
    Sorry in advance for the semi-derail ....

    @Leonard

    I would love to chat with you some time when you get a chance about your involvement with Blake's courses. I am going to be working w/him going forward and would love to pick your brain as to your experiences with his material. Drop me a line and maybe we can talk.

    cXt
    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • Renato_LRenato_L Red Chipper Posts: 190
    jfarrow13 wrote: »
    I know in the long run these plays are good and winning, but when your bankroll is starting to run low, do you have to avoid these spots?

    Sounds like a Risk of Ruin issue. If someone gave me 51% odds but I had to bet my entire net worth, theoretically I should take the bet, but since the risk is that I'm wiped out if I lose, I don't think it would be worth it.

    So, I guess either build your bankroll bigger, or play smaller stakes.
  • WhichWhich Red Chipper Posts: 114 ✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Yeah I dint mind releasing my 2nd or 3rd nut when money involved is way beyond my comfort level. Youre beat when youre beat and I dont like to find out with whole stack.

    Mr Dont-

    I'm not quoting you to make an example of you, but you had the most concise post.

    The above and all the ones like it seem like a blueprint for how Berkey and Soto dissect the normal player population!

    You could take all of y'all's sentiments and probably craft a reasonable 'school of pain' strat ...

    which
  • NinjahNinjah Red Chipper Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭✭
    If the amount of money involved is impacting your decision making then it's hurting your play and preventing you from making the best decisions possible for fear of ruin. You're either playing too high of a stake or you are severely under-rolled.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Imperator wrote: »
    P.S. Thanks for telling me about these Blake videos.

    @Imperator

    Jerry, as it happens I am now working for Blake and the School of Cards/Beyond Tells team. We have been friends for years, and way back when I was a 'student' at SOC, and now I have the pleasure of working with him and his great staff.

    Blake's offices are located in NYC and I may be making weekly trips in to get work done. If you ever want to tag along and check the place out just drop me a line.

    cXt

    @ChipXtractor

    This is great! I've watched a few on YouTube already and I really like the guy! I want to come along. And would love to see you.
  • JoeOffsuitJoeOffsuit Red Chipper Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Renato_L wrote: »
    Sounds like a Risk of Ruin issue. If someone gave me 51% odds but I had to bet my entire net worth, theoretically I should take the bet, but since the risk is that I'm wiped out if I lose, I don't think it would be worth it
    Kelly Criterion is designed to reduce your risk of ruin to near 0%. So you would never employ a strategy that gives you a 49% risk of ruin regardless of EV.

    Renato_L wrote: »
    So, I guess either build your bankroll bigger, or play smaller stakes.
    Exactly!
    And/or start with a shorter stack.
    And/or walk away from a table if your stack ever gets so large that you might get bullied and not be able to play right against other large stacks.
  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    Which wrote: »
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Yeah I dint mind releasing my 2nd or 3rd nut when money involved is way beyond my comfort level. Youre beat when youre beat and I dont like to find out with whole stack.

    Mr Dont-

    I'm not quoting you to make an example of you, but you had the most concise post.

    The above and all the ones like it seem like a blueprint for how Berkey and Soto dissect the normal player population!

    You could take all of y'all's sentiments and probably craft a reasonable 'school of pain' strat ...

    which

    @Which, I take it as compliment. I wish I could write a longer post, but not able to due to lack of knowledge. LOL. I enjoyed others longer, more detailed analysis though. It helps me a lot.

  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    Ninjah wrote: »
    If the amount of money involved is impacting your decision making then it's hurting your play and preventing you from making the best decisions possible for fear of ruin. You're either playing too high of a stake or you are severely under-rolled.

    @Ninjah, true, been working on it. My point was more like in situation villain has nut or total air, such as four flush board with 2nd 3rd nut flush facing huge over bet or allin, or got raised on the river when I have baby boat...At my stakes, $1-3, $2-5, huge bet or all in whole stack play is mostly nut hand from.my experience and don't want to risk my kids.I understand what you're mean though and couldn't agree more. Fear holds me up still, but getting used to it, I believe it.
  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Which wrote: »
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Yeah I dint mind releasing my 2nd or 3rd nut when money involved is way beyond my comfort level. Youre beat when youre beat and I dont like to find out with whole stack.

    Mr Dont-

    I'm not quoting you to make an example of you, but you had the most concise post.

    The above and all the ones like it seem like a blueprint for how Berkey and Soto dissect the normal player population!

    You could take all of y'all's sentiments and probably craft a reasonable 'school of pain' strat ...

    which

    @Which, I take it as compliment. I wish I could write a longer post, but not able to due to lack of knowledge. LOL. I enjoyed others longer, more detailed analysis though. It helps me a lot.
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Which wrote: »
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    Yeah I dint mind releasing my 2nd or 3rd nut when money involved is way beyond my comfort level. Youre beat when youre beat and I dont like to find out with whole stack.

    Mr Dont-

    I'm not quoting you to make an example of you, but you had the most concise post.

    The above and all the ones like it seem like a blueprint for how Berkey and Soto dissect the normal player population!

    You could take all of y'all's sentiments and probably craft a reasonable 'school of pain' strat ...

    which

    @Which, I take it as compliment. I wish I could write a longer post, but not able to due to lack of knowledge. LOL. I enjoyed others longer, more detailed analysis though. It helps me a lot.

    I think you missed his point. What he was saying is that you are describing exactly what we prey upon through pain thresholds.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    If fear (in this case low BR) is causing you to play sub-optimal poker then you are doing it wrong and just making up excuses
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.



  • WhichWhich Red Chipper Posts: 114 ✭✭
    everyone has an excuse when the money gets big....

    if you are still playing lowest stakes after several years, yet you insist that you want to move up?

    You doth protest too much!

    which

  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Yosh wrote: »
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.

    It is not personal it is poker / BR math

    I don't know what a "high risk bet" even is ?

    You should just make the highest EV play you can or at least your best estimation of of it. If BR is stopping you from consistently doing this you should re-think your BR management.

    Think of it this way - if you are passing on +EV plays during a session because of BR fear you are lowering your win rate. If you have a lower win rate you need an even bigger bankroll!

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    Yosh wrote: »
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.

    It is not personal it is poker / BR math

    I don't know what a "high risk bet" even is ?

    You should just make the highest EV play you can or at least your best estimation of of it. If BR is stopping you from consistently doing this you should re-think your BR management.

    Think of it this way - if you are passing on +EV plays during a session because of BR fear you are lowering your win rate. If you have a lower win rate you need an even bigger bankroll!

    @Yosh and @kenaces

    I think you are both half-wrong and half-right.

    The amount of the risk you are willing to take has to have some proportional relation to your bankroll. If it doesn't you are ignoring rational bankroll management.

    The question is where and when do we measure the amount of bankroll risk? Or to put it another way: How do we treat our poker bankroll like an investment portfolio?

    My answer is: This is a consideration we must take before we sit down at the table and has very little to do with any particular hand we play. We need divorce this question from any particular game. Any particular +EV spot has to be divorced from overall bankroll management.

    If you don't do this you fall into what I explained in the behavioral economics thread (here) is called "probability distortion."

    I think the only rational thing to do is to measure the risk to your bankroll (your portfolio management) by the amount of your buy-ins. But once you buy-in for a particular amount the measure of the harm to your overall bankroll has to be put aside as an off-table consideration. You have to be willing to risk all the chips in front of you if the play is really plus-EV.

    The real problem is comes up when we convince ourselves that certain bets are +EV when they are not; and when we convince ourselves other bets are -EV when they are not.

    This is often a problem "probability distortion."
  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    @Imperator, agree with your thought. Once you sat down at the table with x amount of money, whether you're properly bankrolled, stakes are high...should be focusing on playing to generate the greatest +EV.

    I forgot the name of the pro but he stated that bankroll management is a lot more than just money management. Its everything about building your bankroll, such as fixing leaks, sleep well to play A game...So, I think finding and playing +EV spot would be bankroll management in broad.

    On the other hand, as one of perfect target for pain thresholds as others mentioned, I totally understand scared to risk precious money though it looks like +EV spot. If hands are face up, so we know its clearly +EV, its different story, but we could be wrong and get it in terrible spot or -EV.

    That why we bring a couple of buy ins than a single buy in, just in case were wrong or sucked out...Then, if you're not able to have extra buy ins for stakes you're playing, probably you're playing too high or under rolled.

    About bankroll, I assume that its money set aside to play poker, hopefully grow overtime through ups and downs. However, it should not affect to your life, mental, poker play when it is in risk. Could be a couple of hundred for someone, or all the money they have for others.

    My conclusion is, understand your bankroll is always at risk weather your making +EV, or -EV, be comfortable with it by lowered the stakes you're playing, properly or more bankrolled, improve your mental aspect that as long as youre making right play, it doesnt bother you...

    Any comments will be seriously appreciated as always.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Yosh wrote: »
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.

    It is not personal it is poker / BR math

    I don't know what a "high risk bet" even is ?

    You should just make the highest EV play you can or at least your best estimation of of it. If BR is stopping you from consistently doing this you should re-think your BR management.

    Think of it this way - if you are passing on +EV plays during a session because of BR fear you are lowering your win rate. If you have a lower win rate you need an even bigger bankroll!

    @Yosh and @kenaces

    I think you are both half-wrong and half-right.

    The amount of the risk you are willing to take has to have some proportional relation to your bankroll. If it doesn't you are ignoring rational bankroll management.

    The question is where and when do we measure the amount of bankroll risk? Or to put it another way: How do we treat our poker bankroll like an investment portfolio?

    My answer is: This is a consideration we must take before we sit down at the table and has very little to do with any particular hand we play. We need divorce this question from any particular game. Any particular +EV spot has to be divorced from overall bankroll management.

    If you don't do this you fall into what I explained in the behavioral economics thread (here) is called "probability distortion."

    I think the only rational thing to do is to measure the risk to your bankroll (your portfolio management) by the amount of your buy-ins. But once you buy-in for a particular amount the measure of the harm to your overall bankroll has to be put aside as an off-table consideration. You have to be willing to risk all the chips in front of you if the play is really plus-EV.

    The real problem is comes up when we convince ourselves that certain bets are +EV when they are not; and when we convince ourselves other bets are -EV when they are not.

    This is often a problem "probability distortion."
    Imperator wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Yosh wrote: »
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.

    It is not personal it is poker / BR math

    I don't know what a "high risk bet" even is ?

    You should just make the highest EV play you can or at least your best estimation of of it. If BR is stopping you from consistently doing this you should re-think your BR management.

    Think of it this way - if you are passing on +EV plays during a session because of BR fear you are lowering your win rate. If you have a lower win rate you need an even bigger bankroll!

    @Yosh and @kenaces

    I think you are both half-wrong and half-right.

    The amount of the risk you are willing to take has to have some proportional relation to your bankroll. If it doesn't you are ignoring rational bankroll management.

    The question is where and when do we measure the amount of bankroll risk? Or to put it another way: How do we treat our poker bankroll like an investment portfolio?

    My answer is: This is a consideration we must take before we sit down at the table and has very little to do with any particular hand we play. We need divorce this question from any particular game. Any particular +EV spot has to be divorced from overall bankroll management.

    If you don't do this you fall into what I explained in the behavioral economics thread (here) is called "probability distortion."

    I think the only rational thing to do is to measure the risk to your bankroll (your portfolio management) by the amount of your buy-ins. But once you buy-in for a particular amount the measure of the harm to your overall bankroll has to be put aside as an off-table consideration. You have to be willing to risk all the chips in front of you if the play is really plus-EV.

    The real problem is comes up when we convince ourselves that certain bets are +EV when they are not; and when we convince ourselves other bets are -EV when they are not.

    This is often a problem "probability distortion."
    Imperator wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Yosh wrote: »
    Completely rational to avoid high risk bets when your bankroll is short. Accepting this type of volatility could take you a long way from where you want to end up. It certainly doesn't mean you're doing it wrong. Qualifying risk is a highly personal process.

    It is not personal it is poker / BR math

    I don't know what a "high risk bet" even is ?

    You should just make the highest EV play you can or at least your best estimation of of it. If BR is stopping you from consistently doing this you should re-think your BR management.

    Think of it this way - if you are passing on +EV plays during a session because of BR fear you are lowering your win rate. If you have a lower win rate you need an even bigger bankroll!

    @Yosh and @kenaces

    I think you are both half-wrong and half-right.

    The amount of the risk you are willing to take has to have some proportional relation to your bankroll. If it doesn't you are ignoring rational bankroll management.

    The question is where and when do we measure the amount of bankroll risk? Or to put it another way: How do we treat our poker bankroll like an investment portfolio?

    My answer is: This is a consideration we must take before we sit down at the table and has very little to do with any particular hand we play. We need divorce this question from any particular game. Any particular +EV spot has to be divorced from overall bankroll management.

    If you don't do this you fall into what I explained in the behavioral economics thread (here) is called "probability distortion."

    I think the only rational thing to do is to measure the risk to your bankroll (your portfolio management) by the amount of your buy-ins. But once you buy-in for a particular amount the measure of the harm to your overall bankroll has to be put aside as an off-table consideration. You have to be willing to risk all the chips in front of you if the play is really plus-EV.

    The real problem is comes up when we convince ourselves that certain bets are +EV when they are not; and when we convince ourselves other bets are -EV when they are not.

    This is often a problem "probability distortion."

    I agree and we seem to be saying the same thing so what part of my post is 1/2 wrong?
  • Mr. DontMr. Dont Red Chipper Posts: 370 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    @kenaces, Regard to the title, thin spot with low bankroll, could you give me an example for it, or should we always go for thin value? For me, for example, I could sometimes fold AK, JJ to the excessive pre flop action though I might be ahead. Also, I think its absolutely fine to seek for only fat value especially when your bankroll is low.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Off the top of my head and pre-coffee :)

    If we use Kelly Criterion to think about poker bankrolls for a minute(not perfect but worth considering) we see BR=variance/win-rate. By taking every +EV spot you can you will increase your win-rate right. If you are "passing on +EV spots to attempt to decrease variance" you will be lowering your win-rate. So maximizing your winrate will allow you to play with a smaller bankroll!

    People alway forget that WR is critical factor in BR management.

    This bankroll topic is a bit of a pet peeve of mine as there is so much BS and mumbo jumbo on it. People get basic math wrong and then on top of it make all kinds of assumptions about WR and variance leading to bad conclusions. And then there is the emotional side of bankroll managemnt which brings another layer complexity and challegene(ie your WR goes down when you are playing out of your comfort zone......).

    At the end of the day it can be pretty simple if you follow two rules 1) always play in games where you have big edge 2) move down if you runbad
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    Mr. Dont wrote: »
    @kenaces, Regard to the title, thin spot with low bankroll, could you give me an example for it, or should we always go for thin value? For me, for example, I could sometimes fold AK, JJ to the excessive pre flop action though I might be ahead. Also, I think its absolutely fine to seek for only fat value especially when your bankroll is low.

    see above rant

    Yeah it is fine to fold hands where you "might be ahead" that is just good poker. Last night playing live 2/5NLH I 3B AK and folded to super nit who cold 4B huge because I believed that it was the best play not out of some BR fear. I might have been ahead the old nit might have miss read his A4 :)

    Missing value bets might be the biggest leak I see in live poker - so if you are skipping value bets often you are really hurting your win-rate(see above for how that impacts you BR).

    If your BR is low you need to do some combination of moving down and/or learn to play better NOT pass on +EV spots on the felt.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭✭
    I also wanted to add that the best material I have read on BR management math is in the MAP book.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 898 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    kenaces wrote: »
    I agree and we seem to be saying the same thing so what part of my post is 1/2 wrong?

    Not quite...

    Notice above I talked about buy-ins.

    Bankroll management helps to influence the kinds of games we play in and how deep we play.

    It determines how many buy-ins we bring to the room and if and when we can chip up to a full buy-in when we are down.

    It determines the amount of our experience at any given moment. Why? Because it determines whether we need to put a stop-loss on the amount of buy-ins we lose.

    I bluff. I bluff maybe too much. Most of my winnings come from not plus-EV plays in any objective sense but knowing where and when to apply pressure with my bluffs. I try to practice "no-show down poker." The ability to do that depends on being able to play deep.

    If you don't play deep this style of poker is harder to practice. It is plus-EV in the larger sense. But I do find that it is bankroll determinant.

    Your bankroll will inevitably influence overall strategic choices.

    Now if you have to play shorter stacked in any game then that also influence your strategic choices. The fact is that 65s plays differently short-stacked than does AKs.. Regularly putting pressure on limpers is not as effective short stacked as it is deep stacked. Etc.

    So there is a sense in which I find @Yosh 's statement half-right.

    I also found your statement not completely right because the initial decision of where and how you play determines certain kinds of strategies. We should account for that.

    This initial decision is "personal" in the sense that a bankroll is a personal accounting before we get to the table.

Leave a Comment

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