US States
NJ Online Casinos
WV Online Casinos
PA Online Casinos
Michigan Online Casinos
Online Casino California
Online Casino Arizona
Online Casino NY
Real Money Casinos
Fastest Payout Casinos
Mobile Casino Apps
New Online Casinos
Casino Payment Methods
Sweepstakes
Sweepstakes apps
No deposit bonus
Daily login bonus
Sweepstakes games
Crown Coins
Funrize
Hello Millions
High 5 Casino
Jackpota Casino
Mcluck
MegaBonanza
PlayFame
Pulsz
RealPrize
Stake.us
Sweepstakes coins
Awards
Search forums
Free Games
Free Blackjack
Free Online Roulette
Free Slots
Bonuses
No Deposit Bonus
Crown Coins Promo Code
Funrize Primo Code
Hello Millions Promo Code
High 5 Casino Promo Code
Jackpota Promo Code
McLuck Promo Code
MegaBonanza Promo Code
Pulsz Promo Code
RealPrize Promo Code
Stake.us Promo Code
Games
Online Slots
Blackjack
Roulette
Poker
CardsChat Freerolls
How to Play Poker
Poker Hands
Poker Strategy
Free Online Poker Game
Poker Bonuses
Poker Tools
Poker Podcast
Poker School
Forum
News
Log in
Join
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Install the app
Install
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
A divergent theory on bankroll management.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Sohmurr, post: 1057518, member: 23211"] After reading about half the book, I think I can understand and explain Barry's point of view a little better. First off, he does mention the need to have yourself staked based on your win rates and play style a bit later, but it's not forumlaic or detailed on bankroll amounts to a big extent and it doesn't contradict what he states in the quotes I posted. I think his Q & A for the BRM question has to do with something I like to call the "infinite bankroll" (neat name, and a neat concept to). Let's pretend that you are completely broke. You have no money to play poker. In fact, you have no money for food or gas, no possessions, no house. You have absolutely nothing. But that's not true. This is where my "infinite bankroll" comes in and my interpretation of Barry's reasoning. The mere fact that you are alive is value. You're abilities define your bankroll. Whether you're a college educated professional who can obtain a high paying job, or someone with only the basic abilities endowed to every human being, you have worth. And the difference in that worth is the subject of many economic classes (in fact this post is a brief and basic economics overview with tie ins to poker). Let's take someone with no education or training. They can still be a functional member of society through on-the-job training. For example, I worked at Wal-Mart as a cart monkey (pushed carts back to the front of the store) during my first winter break at college and worked with people who were mentally handicapped, performing a job useful and necessary to society. There was even a cashier missing an arm who pushed carts one night for some reason. Anyway, I think you get where I'm coming from by now so I'll pull back from this little tangent. Because you are alive and have or can obtain the skills to earn a wage, you have a bankroll or the ability to get one. (Bankroll here not referring only to poker, but to all money related activities.) Therefore, you have an "infinite bankroll" and always have the ability to make money, from poker, a job, or another endeavor. Barry went broke once or twice and used his university training to get a job and eventually got back into poker after several years of normal life. If you put your bankroll at risk in a situation where you are a large favorite and go bust, so what. People still need goods and services, and money will not stop being printed. Besides, most people don't play professionally and have primary incomes. And professionals, especially live ones, can take and give loans to other professionals. It happens frequently in Bobby's Room at the Bellagio (so I've read) and it probably happens even more elsewhere. (Of course, as Barry points out, you have to be careful about who you lend money to and who you accept it from. It sucks to be owed money when you need it.) This is my "infinite bankroll" theory and what I think Barry is getting at. Thefatman313 mentioned Barry talking about live poker. I think that's true, but not because online players are tougher or that super easy games don't exist online; both those things are true. It's more relevant to live poker because of the physical nature and transperancy of seeing and dealing with chips and money. Online poker has the disadvantage (or depending on people's spending habits, advantage) of not being able to quickly acess your winnings. Especially in the USA where lack of regulation dissuades many banks and credit cards from dealing with poker sites, but even in Europe you must transfer the money from your poker account to an online bank or credit card, then you must go to a real bank to collect the money or use your credit card to spend it. Oh, and one last thing... Ughhh, what?? Hansel as in Hansel and Grettle, the fairy tale kids who were easily seduced by the witch? Like I'm easily seduced by what Barry wrote? Either you are way underestimating me or I'm extrapolating your post wayyyy to much, lol. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
A divergent theory on bankroll management.
Top