Ideal bankroll for LIVE poker?

[lukeellul92]

What would your ideal bankroll be for $1/$2 and / or $2/$5 live poker?

For me, I feel $1/$2 could be bankrolled probably with as little as 2-3k.

But for $2/$5 I feel a bankroll closer to 10k would be more ideal?

Thoughts?

 

[Aces2w1n]

I read 8 buyins somewhere which was weird but if ur a nit or solid tag its doable... just make sure u can fold


I think 4k would b ideal if beginning or more


Or just play micro online n learn concepts intil ur confident

 

[Marginal]

It depends on how big the games play. For example the 2/5 games here are super deep and 10k would not be a comfortable roll.

I would suggest to be truly comfortable it would be 25k for 2/5

 

[korbal29]

A million dollar is not enough if you are a chip burner

 

[lukeellul92]

It depends on how big the games play. For example the 2/5 games here are super deep and 10k would not be a comfortable roll.

I would suggest to be truly comfortable it would be 25k for 2/5

Yeah, I get that. I'm going off the typical 100bb buy ins. I think most casinos that do $2/$5 do a typical 100bb buy in max, if not 200bb.

I had a guy who saved up 50k for 2/5, the whole 100 buy ins, but that's to combat the swings of online poker, not live. But still, worked for him.

 

[Marginal]

Swings are swings. Doesnt really matter whether it is online or live but obv in live you have more time to reassess but swings are swings

 

[Thinker_145]

Swings are swings. Doesnt really matter whether it is online or live but obv in live you have more time to reassess but swings are swings

Yes but in online poker you need a bankroll just to play on x number of tables. That's like the absolute minimum you need at all times. In live poker its just 1 buy in to start playing.

Then of course in any given online session even in winning ones you will be losing on some tables and obviously the money is stuck on the winning ones so then you need even more bankroll to keep feeding the tables you are not winning at. Where as in live poker you only have to manage feeding one table.

So basically in online poker more money is permanently stuck just to be able to play.

Now I have no idea what level of play 1/2 casino games have but in my home games with friends I have never experienced more than a 500BB swing over a huge sample. Level of play is obviously pretty bad.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[FearlessPhil]

Are you talking about how much you need to begin playing for a living or just how much you need to play at all?

 

[lukeellul92]

Are you talking about how much you need to begin playing for a living or just how much you need to play at all?

Probably somewhere in the middle hey. I work full time so my Poker time is on Friday or Saturday nights, sometimes both if I have no plans, as well as Sundays days.

I want a bankroll, so that if I do become successful it can be a side income, but without the risk of having to use my life money.

 

[Marginal]

Yes but in online poker you need a bankroll just to play on x number of tables. That's like the absolute minimum you need at all times. In live poker its just 1 buy in to start playing.

Then of course in any given online session even in winning ones you will be losing on some tables and obviously the money is stuck on the winning ones so then you need even more bankroll to keep feeding the tables you are not winning at. Where as in live poker you only have to manage feeding one table.

So basically in online poker more money is permanently stuck just to be able to play.

Now I have no idea what level of play 1/2 casino games have but in my home games with friends I have never experienced more than a 500BB swing over a huge sample. Level of play is obviously pretty bad.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

you are not incorrect but you are talking about playing roll as compared to actually bankroll. I am not suggesting taking 25k to your casino every time you go play 2/5 but I am saying you may need to have it behind to be able to adequately battle the swings.

 

[FearlessPhil]

Probably somewhere in the middle hey. I work full time so my Poker time is on Friday or Saturday nights, sometimes both if I have no plans, as well as Sundays days.

I want a bankroll, so that if I do become successful it can be a side income, but without the risk of having to use my life money.

I don't really understand why it would require a specific size bankroll to play as a sideline. If you have enough spare money to get in the game then you can play once and, if you lose, wait until you've saved enough to get in another game. Why would you wait until you've saved a bigger bankroll?

On the other hand, it you're thinking about giving up your day job and playing poker for a living, you need to accumulate enough to pay your living expenses as well as bankrolling your actual poker playing.

 

[Mr Sandbag]

Honestly for 1/2 don't worry about it. It's not like you can move down to smaller live stakes if you hit a downswing. Just set aside an amount you don't mind losing and play. If that's only $2k then play 1/2 and worry about bankroll once you gain experience and start building your roll consistently.

 

[lukeellul92]

Honestly for 1/2 don't worry about it. It's not like you can move down to smaller live stakes if you hit a downswing. Just set aside an amount you don't mind losing and play. If that's only $2k then play 1/2 and worry about bankroll once you gain experience and start building your roll consistently.

And for $2/$5?

 

[Mr Sandbag]

Depends if the money is replaceable. If it's not then play 2/5 until your roll is down to about $3-4k, then play 1/2 until you're back up to $5k or so. It's essentially a shot taking strategy.

 

[Latamgrinder]

BRM depends mostly on the players winrate and volume, this should give you a good/solid estimate on how much buy ins would you need in order to get a very low RoR, other factors also matter like chances of reload in case of busto, prone to tilt, are u getting any rakeback benefits, bonus, etc.

 

[Mase31683]

Wow, wrote a ridiculously long post twice and got told I didn't have permissions and copy didn't work....

So without the flair and fun:

If you care about working your game up through stakes, building a roll, and minimizing risk then you need BRM.

Need 20 BI's with exception for folks trying to get into $200nl. Those folks can scratch together what they can and take shots. Suggest you divide that chunk into three bullets to avoid suboptimal play related to having one shot.

Once going to $500nl if you don't have $10,000 you're wrong. If you sit with say $4,000 roll and stack a donk now you have $4,500 roll with $1,000 on the table. You're not going to be playing right when facing the possibility of sticking 22% of your roll in versus deeper stacks.

Find the BR that allows you to sit at the table and make good decisions.

 

[rastapapolos]

i think that 20 to 25 BI for both is okay.
So 4k to 5k for the NL200 and 10k for the NL500

 

[Karozi615]

tl;dr thread but OP's thoughts are SPOTTT on. 2/5 plays way more loose and swingy then 1/2. A really really really really sharp player could sit in a 1/2 game and SS with a 1500$ bankroll and almost certainly avoid catastrophe because live players are literally so bad they hand their money over to you.

honestly, you don't even have to be good in live venues. Just go be a dumb nit who only plays premiums and carve out a solid win rate.

 

[IrinaNicole]

Live cash!

Last year I played two weeks live poker(1-2) and I had a bankroll of 1500-1800 Eur, I play very tight so I never had problems with the bankroll but If you like to play more hands I guess you should have like 3000-4000 Eur Bankroll, to be safe in case you have a bad downswing.
I made some nice profits with live poker, maybe when I build a bankroll again I will have another try!

 

[Kekule]

Live poker is so much different. Even though the blinds are $1/$2 it is really more like playing a short stack at a $2/$5 or $4/$8 table honestly.

Maybe it's just in my area of the US (I haven't played poker live too many places), but it doesn't matter that the blinds are $1/$2. A raise to $6 or $8 means nothing to 90% of the players. If you want a preflop raise to be taken seriously it needs to be $12+. Otherwise there are way too many limpers.

Then the problem with that is if the buy in is 100bb ($200), you could be investing 40-80% of your stack in a single hand. For instance: Preflop raise to $12, two callers, pot = $36. Half to 3/4 pot raise, one caller, pot = ~$90. And you still have the bets on the turn and river to go!

Because of this inherent issue in live cash games, I would say the minimum bankroll should be at least 40 buy ins which is $8000 for a $1/$2 cash game. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I was rolled with about 50-60 buy ins but I like to make sure I'm covered for any huge downswings.

 

[Thinker_145]

Live poker is so much different. Even though the blinds are $1/$2 it is really more like playing a short stack at a $2/$5 or $4/$8 table honestly.

Maybe it's just in my area of the US (I haven't played poker live too many places), but it doesn't matter that the blinds are $1/$2. A raise to $6 or $8 means nothing to 90% of the players. If you want a preflop raise to be taken seriously it needs to be $12+. Otherwise there are way too many limpers.

Then the problem with that is if the buy in is 100bb ($200), you could be investing 40-80% of your stack in a single hand. For instance: Preflop raise to $12, two callers, pot = $36. Half to 3/4 pot raise, one caller, pot = ~$90. And you still have the bets on the turn and river to go!

Because of this inherent issue in live cash games, I would say the minimum bankroll should be at least 40 buy ins which is $8000 for a $1/$2 cash game. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I was rolled with about 50-60 buy ins but I like to make sure I'm covered for any huge downswings.

Our home games are also like that in terms of pre flop raises but I don't see how this makes for a higher BR requirement. If players are so careless about the value of the BB then that just means they are bad players and a good player will be consistently winning in such games. You can say the per hand variance will be higher but not overall since it will be so easy to get action with your premiums. If too many players are calling your raises keep raising more and you will eventually find the optimum balance to isolate one or 2 players with your premiums.

What this also means is that because there are so many players in pre flop your speculative hands can be played even with higher than standard pre flop 2 bets.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[Kekule]

Our home games are also like that in terms of pre flop raises but I don't see how this makes for a higher BR requirement. If players are so careless about the value of the BB then that just means they are bad players and a good player will be consistently winning in such games. You can say the per hand variance will be higher but not overall since it will be so easy to get action with your premiums. If too many players are calling your raises keep raising more and you will eventually find the optimum balance to isolate one or 2 players with your premiums.

What this also means is that because there are so many players in pre flop your speculative hands can be played even with higher than standard pre flop 2 bets.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

You hit it right on the head. Since the bet sizing is larger, the variance is significantly higher.

It's no different than playing $4/$8 with a short stack. You need more buy ins to account for the variance. Sure, it also means the players are terrible and that your premiums can pay you off more. But you'll have to be willing to accept the higher variance and make calls against the donks to hit your draws.

Thus, the higher bankroll requirement. Variance and downswings are bastards you know?

 

[Thinker_145]

No I disagree. When you are playing a poor player pool the variance will be lower. When you are playing on a table with too much pre flop action then you just gotta get tigher. Most of the times you will win big pots with premium hands instead of winning smaller pots which decreases variance.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[Kekule]

I, and the shear math involved, very very much disagree.

 

[Thinker_145]

I, and the shear math involved, very very much disagree.

So you are saying that bigger average pot size means higher variance? Higher variance per hand sure but not overall. There is a big big difference between the 2 things.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk