<brag> Worked my way up from $60 to almost $900

Doing nothing but playing 2/5 at Brantford. I've lost some, but I've won WAY more than I've lost. This is over approx 120 hours.

I think I'm ready for 5/10. What do you think?

Comments

  • I think you're probably right. Give it a try. I've never played Brandford. What's it like? I've played the 2-5 at Rama and find it's a crap-shoot - what my buddy and I often refer to as "Bingo Poker" because you always have 9 people seeing a flop and 7 of those chasing until the river. :P
  • Congratz Boy!

    GO GET EM' TIGER......JUST JUMP OVER TO 20/40
  • I doubt the validity of this story in a game with a rake that high.

    Anyway, just move up. Money grows on trees anyway.
  • <brag> Worked my way up from $60 to almost $900

    Oh. I thought this was going to be some sort of hooker/stripper related story...
  • Buddha wrote: »
    what my buddy and I often refer to as "Bingo Poker" because you always have 9 people seeing a CAPPED flop, TURN and 7 of those chasing until the river WHICH IS ALSO CAPPED. :P

    Fixed your post.
  • BBC Z wrote: »
    I doubt the validity of this story in a game with a rake that high.

    Anyway, just move up. Money grows on trees anyway.

    2 bad sessions and you might lose what you've earned...but meh, go for it, what does bankroll management mean anyways.
  • $900 is easily enough to be properly bankrolled for 5/10. I mean, you can buy in for 30 bets 3 whole times!!!
  • His win rate is 1.4 big bets per hour ($840 / 120 hours). zunni74, have you tracked your standard deviation?
    BBC Z wrote: »
    I doubt the validity of this story in a game with a rake that high.
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    Doing nothing but playing 2/5 at Brantford. I've lost some, but I've won WAY more than I've lost. This is over approx 120 hours.

    I think I'm ready for 5/10. What do you think?


    I believe that his story is true.

    I've found the variance in the 2/5 game to be huge. I don't have enough hours to talk about a meaningful standard deviation. Last year I had a +$1140 session (11 hours) followed by -$302 session (5 hours).

    Imagine the humiliation of losing 60 big bets at 2/5 in just 5 hours!

    I've played the 5/10 game quite a bit at Brantford last year.
    I find the 5/10 game much easier than the 2/5 game because the rake is still only $5 max 10%. The 5/10 game players are still horrible.

    Move up.

    If Christine is in a hand she has a hand.
    Get into the game if Roger is in it.

    Good luck.
  • Thanks for fixing my post Queen Nine. I agree the standard deviation is huge - at least on the 2-5 games I've played - and that you might do better in a 5-10 game.

    On the down side, you should consider your bankroll management. I play mostly online because I'm more than 3 hours away from the nearest casino. I buy in for 5% of my bankroll (10% if it's a limit game.) I guess it depends how quickly you can replenish your bankroll if you have 1 or 2 bad sessions (and that happens to everyone.)
  • If Christine is in a hand she has a hand.


    I actually got Christine to fold the best hand in a 3 way pot.

    here is what happened on the river:

    Board read Q 6 7 A K <--Flush & Straight card on the river.

    Christine bets the river, I raise representing a flush, if she raises me back i'll fold. To my surprise, late position re-raises my bet.

    Christine say's "damn, that was a bad river card for me" She shows her husband, who was next to her. Dealer flips her cards open after she folds. Christine folded AK.

    The whole idea of me raising the river was an info bet, if I get 3 betted i'm behind. Then the guy tells me, "i'll show you, if you fold"

    I laughed and said, it's okay ...and raised him back, now he was in hesitation mode. He ended up calling and shows QJ

    I scoop the pot with AQ
  • BlondeFish wrote: »
    His win rate is 1.4 big bets per hour ($840 / 120 hours). zunni74, have you tracked your standard deviation?

    I haven't. Since I'm not tracking my stats on Poker Tracker, is there another tool that will calculate this for me?
  • Buddha wrote: »
    Thanks for fixing my post Queen Nine. I agree the standard deviation is huge - at least on the 2-5 games I've played - and that you might do better in a 5-10 game.

    On the down side, you should consider your bankroll management. I play mostly online because I'm more than 3 hours away from the nearest casino. I buy in for 5% of my bankroll (10% if it's a limit game.) I guess it depends how quickly you can replenish your bankroll if you have 1 or 2 bad sessions (and that happens to everyone.)

    This post is as good as any to explain my situation (opinions welcome, I've had bad ideas before this might be one of them)

    I live in Brantford, so I go to the casino once or twice a week, because of this I generally can go, lose $60-$80 and then leave (my buy-in). When I've had a losing session it's been because the game itself was tough, or I haven't been in the right headspace to play and find myself making bad plays.

    I generally play a tight conservative style (with aggressive moments) that seems to serve me well, my big pots are usually pretty large and I'm usually not in that many small pots to lose. I don't play a tonne of hands per hour.

    My largest win has been $154 and my largest single night loss is $110 (Several nights I'm up over $100, Monday night was up $121). Because I play tighter than almost all I don't usually have lots of opportunities to go on huge runs so wins of over $300+ at 2/5 haven't happened for me, and are rare to see by others)

    My current win ratio in terms of nights is about 75% (meaning I end up 75% of my trips) some nights that's been $1-2 but those are included in that stat. When I lose I lose my entire buy-in for that evening.

    My bankroll can be replaced if lost, but I'm mostly looking at taking a shot at 5/10 and see how I feel about the game. If I feel like I can compete at that level and the variance and swings are manageable for my comfort-level then I'll continue playing at that level with occasional evenings at 2/5.

    I plan on buying in for about 250-300 a session as that's comparable to what I buy in for at the lower level (assuming I'm calculating it correctly it's X number of big blinds right, not big bets?).

    I recognize ordinarily that you'd want to have a much larger roll to take a full time run at 5/10, however I feel that living in Brantford and going so frequently allows me to walk away stuck when I'm not down much and I'm back so frequently that I can drop back down after 1 or 2 losing sessions without a major hassle to me.

    Anyway, let me know where my logic fails and I'll adjust :)
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    I haven't. Since I'm not tracking my stats on Poker Tracker, is there another tool that will calculate this for me?

    http://www.pokerdominator.com
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    My bankroll can be replaced if lost
    This one statement basically means you can ignore most bankroll management guidelines. If you want to take a shot, do it. Worst case, you need to replace your losses, but at least you'll be able to try it out (which seems to be your desire). Good luck!
  • Hobbes wrote: »

    I've used StatKing and entered my sessions. Provided I've done it correctly, it looks like my Standard Deviation is about $31 an hour.

    Now what does that mean?? ;)
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    I've used StatKing and entered my sessions. Provided I've done it correctly, it looks like my Standard Deviation is about $31 an hour.

    Now what does that mean?? ;)

    It's an indication of the swings. If you lose a buy-in one day and win a 1 1/2 buy-in the next then your std deviation will be big but your avg. return will be 1/4 buy-in. if you win 1/4 buy-in every time you play then your std deviation will be 0 but you will have the same avg return.

    i.e. it's an indicator of variance and therefore likely-hood of going broke.

    don't worry about it. Like Beanie said, if you can replace your bankroll by going into pocket (and not missing rent) then you're already rolled for 5-10.
  • I use PokerTracking.com to track my results & be able to do detailed analysis. Risk of ruin is your chance of going broke from a particular bankroll level, and the formula is
    exp (-2 µ b / ó²).
    With a mean win rate (µ) of 3.5 small bets/hour ($7/$2), a bankroll (b) of 450 small bets, & a standard deviation (ó) of $31/hour, your risk of ruin is
    exp (-2 * 3.5 * 450 / 961)
    = 3.77%.

    Hopefully, ReefAquarium can verify my calculation from pages 290-292 of The Mathematics of Poker book. If the numbers are correct, your risk of ruin in the 2/5 Limit game with $900 bankroll is less than 4%. To compare with 1/2 NL, I would need a bankroll of $2,000 to have the same low risk of ruin. Since my bankroll was higher, it was a no-brainer for me to move up.
    zunni74 wrote: »
    Provided I've done it correctly, it looks like my Standard Deviation is about $31 an hour.
    Now what does that mean?? ;)
  • I generally play a tight conservative style (with aggressive moments) that seems to serve me well, my big pots are usually pretty large and I'm usually not in that many small pots to lose. I don't play a tonne of hands per hour.

    You'll beat the worst players at the table, but lose to the observant ones. But really, just go for it. Just expect more betting and raising than you'd see at 2/5.
    My current win ratio in terms of nights is about 75% (meaning I end up 75% of my trips) some nights that's been $1-2 but those are included in that stat. When I lose I lose my entire buy-in for that evening.

    Delete the concept of "Win Ratio per night", it's variantical bullshit.
  • $900 is easily enough to be properly bankrolled for 5/10. I mean, you can buy in for 30 bets 3 whole times!!!

    This made me chuckle, mainly because $60 is clearly enough to be BR'd at 2/5. You can buyin for the minimum...once! :)

    Seriously though, as mentioned, if you have the money in pocket, BR requirements don't matter, it's simply your risk tolerance that matters.

    And definitely keep in mind that this:
    Delete the concept of "Win Ratio per night", it's variantical bullshit.

    Is dead on. Limit poker isn't about winning sessions, or buyins, or $.

    It's about winning bets. And yes, moving to $5-10 is beneficial for rake reasons. The competition isn't noticeably better. Good luck.

    FWIW, who in their right mind bluff 3 bets the river with MP against 2 opponents...not to mention, who caps the river with 2 pair on that board...damn.

    Live poker is the bomb.
  • I knew he was behind after he said "If you fold, i'll show" I guess you had to be at the table, during that entire session and you would have done the same :)
  • BlondeFish wrote: »
    I use PokerTracking.com to track my results & be able to do detailed analysis. Risk of ruin is your chance of going broke from a particular bankroll level, and the formula is
    exp (-2 µ b / ó²).
    With a mean win rate (µ) of 3.5 small bets/hour ($7/$2), a bankroll (b) of 450 small bets, & a standard deviation (ó) of $31/hour, your risk of ruin is
    exp (-2 * 3.5 * 450 / 961)
    = 3.77%.

    Hopefully, ReefAquarium can verify my calculation from pages 290-292 of The Mathematics of Poker book. If the numbers are correct, your risk of ruin in the 2/5 Limit game with $900 bankroll is less than 4%. To compare with 1/2 NL, I would need a bankroll of $2,000 to have the same low risk of ruin. Since my bankroll was higher, it was a no-brainer for me to move up.

    Yes, Blondfish's math is correct and Blondfish's conclusions about the risk of ruin are correct ... assuming a normal distribution ...
  • tl; dr

    =================
  • Very Short Followup.. Played 5/10 last night, ended up +205 (And yes I know I'm being short-sighted). Was a reasonable game, gets alot more profitable when the 10/20 guys are waiting for a table! :)

    But you can really see a difference between the limits (2/5 vs. 5/10).
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    But you can really see a difference between the limits (2/5 vs. 5/10).

    I've been delaying playing the 5/10 game (not because I don't think I can beat it, I just can't afford to drop a buy-in right now), so I'm interested to hear what you think the differences are.
  • $3 and $5

    The players are just as crappy. The rake effect is less. Just depends if your wallet can handle dropping a buyin or two.
  • moose wrote: »
    $3 and $5

    The players are just as crappy. The rake effect is less. Just depends if your wallet can handle dropping a buyin or two.

    I haven't played it enough to know for sure. If I sit 5/10 tomorrow night I'll update this thread with my results and answer the question if I feel like I can effectively. (One session does not an understanding make)
  • zunni74 wrote: »
    I haven't played it enough to know for sure. If I sit 5/10 tomorrow night I'll update this thread with my results and answer the question if I feel like I can effectively. (One session does not an understanding make)

    Good luck. Just apply SSH and you should be fine.
Sign In or Register to comment.