Ok skolsuper obv could have been more diplomatic (understatement) with his posts. But he is being slated for two things:
1. Having the temerity to suggest ICM is important in dyms - Im no expert on either but this would seem to be obviously true
2. Stating that he didnt think dyms used a lot of the skills you need in other forms of poker - possibly fair
I dont like dyms either, I think they are the most boring form of poker, but to each their own. I havent read the blog for this reason, but from what I've seen JC post in this forum I'm sure its excellent and a valuable resource for anyone playing them (also huge respect for people who take time to do this kind of thing). But if it doesnt mention ICM its a fair point to make that maybe it should (again maybe not in manner skolsuper did)
One quick question JC. Given the low ROI figures that good players attain. I'm surprised that you advocate playing normal speed, as I would have thought extra volume from playing fastest games possible would make bigger profits due to extra volume (esp at higher stakes), despite having slightly less edge. Thoughts?
EDIT: I realise the reason some people are having a go at skol is because of his manner of posting, fair enough but it doesnt mean his points are not valid
Read your blog the other day, and must say its a very comprehensive guide. Having seen you open shove with junk I now understand the rationale behind your thinking. If you can get your opponents to lay their hand down enough times then its a profitable play. Even if you get called, most times you wont be much more than a 40/60 dog.
Totally agree with your points about c4p, put enough volume in and you can bink a grand even at lower stakes. Sadly I am not a winning DYM player, I discovered that last month when I looked at my scope figs and have gone back to hu sngs (loving the hypers) and play more cash now. Perhaps one day I will read your blog again in more detail and take another stab at dyms.
Finally apologies for the rant a few days ago, loads of testosterone was flying around but its still disapointing to see a pro make such comments. You have clearly put a lot of effort into writing this and it should be commended.
I have played u at higher stakes DYMs many, many times and in the end I ended up stopping playing them (fed up of losing to ur garbage hand shoves with air) (JOKE)
The main reason I stopped was the robotic nature of them and I found it started affecting my play in other forms (CASH, MTT). How do u ensure this doesn't happen to u? What adjustments do u make?
A bit late to the party, but let me echo what the others said and thank you for a great blog.
Do you only play hold'em dyms only or do you mix in PLO/PLO8 as well? If so, how does your basic strategy change? Does the higher variance of Omaha combined with the fast structure magnify or neutralise any skill edge a player might have?
Ok skolsuper obv could have been more diplomatic (understatement) with his posts. But he is being slated for two things: 1. Having the temerity to suggest ICM is important in dyms - Im no expert on either but this would seem to be obviously true 2. Stating that he didnt think dyms used a lot of the skills you need in other forms of poker - possibly fair I dont like dyms either, I think they are the most boring form of poker, but to each their own. I havent read the blog for this reason, but from what I've seen JC post in this forum I'm sure its excellent and a valuable resource for anyone playing them (also huge respect for people who take time to do this kind of thing). But if it doesnt mention ICM its a fair point to make that maybe it should (again maybe not in manner skolsuper did) One quick question JC. Given the low ROI figures that good players attain. I'm surprised that you advocate playing normal speed, as I would have thought extra volume from playing fastest games possible would make bigger profits due to extra volume (esp at higher stakes), despite having slightly less edge. Thoughts? EDIT: I realise the reason some people are having a go at skol is because of his manner of posting, fair enough but it doesnt mean his points are not valid Posted by grantorino
Thanks, Grantorino.
You are of course right that only low ROIs are attainable in DYMs. The turbo DYMs offer even lower ROIs. But yes, volumewise, you should really just look at your hourly rate instead of ROIs. I think there are 2 main reasons, though, why I advocate playing the normal DYMs on Sky (and both reasons are pretty specific to Sky):
1) Even though they still last about 40 mins (on average), the normal DYMs on Sky are still pretty fast already, in my opinion, having only 5 minute blinds. The 'Turbocharged' DYMs, with half the stack and 2 minute blinds, are more like 'super-turbos', again, in my opinion. I don't know what ROIs are possible in these games as I haven't got a sample but I would think that it is very low. But, yes, if you could play enough, there may come point where it is more beneficial to you to play these instead. That leads me on to the second reason:
2) I don't think it's possible to play the huge volumes of the 'Turbocharged' DYMs that I think would be required to make them more profitable than standard DYMs on Sky. They are a lot harder to multi-table as I think there is less decision time. I found it difficult playing 4 at a time. With normal DYMs, you can fairly comfortably play 8-10 tables. Also, I'm not sure how often they run compared to normal DYMs, although again I don't have a sample.
JC Read your blog the other day, and must say its a very comprehensive guide. Having seen you open shove with junk I now understand the rationale behind your thinking. If you can get your opponents to lay their hand down enough times then its a profitable play. Even if you get called, most times you wont be much more than a 40/60 dog. Totally agree with your points about c4p, put enough volume in and you can bink a grand even at lower stakes. Sadly I am not a winning DYM player, I discovered that last month when I looked at my scope figs and have gone back to hu sngs (loving the hypers) and play more cash now. Perhaps one day I will read your blog again in more detail and take another stab at dyms. Finally apologies for the rant a few days ago, loads of testosterone was flying around but its still disapointing to see a pro make such comments. You have clearly put a lot of effort into writing this and it should be commended. Posted by ACEGOONER
Hi JC - excellent effort! I have played u at higher stakes DYMs many, many times and in the end I ended up stopping playing them (fed up of losing to ur garbage hand shoves with air) (JOKE) The main reason I stopped was the robotic nature of them and I found it started affecting my play in other forms (CASH, MTT). How do u ensure this doesn't happen to u? What adjustments do u make? Posted by phil12uk
Hi Phil, many thanks.
I definitely know what you mean when you say 'robotic nature' and there is no denying that. I almost put into the blog about how DYMs can do this and have adverse effects on your game in other formats (Cash/MTT etc). I decided not to as I didn't want to discourage anyone from playing DYMs as they are great, for reasons mentioned in the blog. In any case, and what your question is getting at, you can ensure that playing DYMs doesn't negatively affect your game in other areas.
There a couple of practical things you can do to help here. One thing I found useful on occasion was to just sit there before starting a session and ask yourself, "Am I in the right mindset (i.e. DYM/Cash/MTT whatever) to play these now". Making up (even writing down if necessary) specific scenarios may help certain players here. E.g. Ask yourself, "what will I do if I am dealt pocket 2s UTG first hand?" or "what will I do if someone shoves into me and I have 15BB's holding AK?" To continue the example for the first question one players answers may be as follows:
DYM: open fold Cash: raise MTT: limp in to try and see a cheap flop
So long as you are getting the answers right (according to your own strategies) this should help you separate the disciplines.
The other thing is, I would really recommend only playing one discipline at a time. It can get quite confusing trying to juggle 2 different disciplines (e.g. DYM and Cash) and I imagine 3 would be something of a nightmare. This is an easy adjustment to make and I would even recomend doing it as far as possible. What I mean is, don't just say, "I'm only playing DYMs in this session". Try to say instead, "I'm only playing DYMs today/this week/whatever". The less often you mix it up the easier it should be, in my opinion. Of course it may not be practical for players to do this and they may not want to, it is only a suggestion.
A bit late to the party, but let me echo what the others said and thank you for a great blog. Do you only play hold'em dyms only or do you mix in PLO/PLO8 as well? If so, how does your basic strategy change? Does the higher variance of Omaha combined with the fast structure magnify or neutralise any skill edge a player might have? Posted by Giant811
Hi Giant, thank you.
Unfortunately, I only play Hold'em DYMs so this answer may disappoint a little. What I will say is that, although I am no good at it, I love Omaha and have had a little success in the one or two small tourneys I have played on here (due to high percentages of the field being even worse than me - I know the basics).
I did once consider playing some Omaha DYMs but I couldn't get my head around how they would work with it being Pot-Limit. A lot of my DYM decisions are shove/fold so I thought Omaha DYMs would be hard near the end. For example, you pick up a hand you want to go with, you raise it with the intention of getting it all-in pre, or on the flop at worse (I'm talking about situations where you would open-shove in Hold'Em). But, you get 3 callers and miss the flop completely. Now you've put half your stack in the middle, there's no way you can win a show-down, and your chip stack is too uncompetitive if you fold. I'm sure there are ways around these problems but I am not good enough at Omaha to know what they are, unfortunately. I did mean to ask IrishRover about them as I understand he is excellent at Omaha DYMs. Perhaps he could enlighten me here and you on your other Omaha related questions...
tbf he could have just missed out ICM to avoid having all his games get significantly tougher since hes posting on a forum that will directly help the regs he plays against
As I have mentioned above I am setting myself a challenge. I stated in my blog that I believed that anyone could build a 4 figure roll playing solely DYMs. I intend to do that from a starting BR of £17.12. If anyone fancies joining me in doing this you are more than welcome to and feel free to use this thread to update progress.
My bankroll management will follow what was stated in my blog, moving up when I have 20-22 times the buy-in for the next level. As such I will be starting at the £0.60 level and facing the dreaded 20% rake. Let's see if we can beat it.
I have set no targets as to completion, but I am probably thinking something around Christmas would be good. In the event of failure I'm not 100% sure but I think I will reload £30 or so and start again at the £1.15 level. I hope it doesn't come to that, though.
Following will be my Day 1 post (actually played Thursday), I am currently playing Day 2.
Was extremely pleasing to start with, reaching the bubble during level 1 in each of the first 2 £0.60 games. As I said in the blog, money in my pocket, ka-ching!!! Unfortunately, though, it didn't translate to actual money in my pocket on these occassions.
At the start of one of the mini-sessions, as the £0.60s, weren't filling too quickly (I was going to 4-table), I reg'd for a £1.15. I promptly ran trips into trips sb vs bb and was out. This is why we don't break our bankroll management rules, I won't be doing that again anytime soon.
Something that did stand out was understanding of the 'co-operation play' I mentioned in the blog. The first time it occurred we both checked it down and eliminated the short-stack, happy days. The second time we checked around a flop and I thought, this is good to see, the £0.60 players understand the play. Then, out of nowhere, a small-stack (with a micro-stack all-in) bets all-in into me, (risking his DYM life as I am the big-stack). I can afford the call but opt to lay down second pair no kicker, fully expecting to be shown the nuts. He turns over a gut-shot + undercards to the board. Hmmmmm. Then this hand happens!
Player
Action
Cards
Amount
Pot
Balance
xxx
Small blind
300.00
300.00
4200.00
conehead
Big blind
600.00
900.00
3710.00
Your hole cards
K
6
JohnConnor
Fold
SigmaUK
All-in
170.00
1070.00
0.00
xxx
Call
300.00
1370.00
3900.00
conehead
Check
Flop
4
A
3
xxx
Check
conehead
Check
Turn
4
xxx
Check
conehead
Check
River
2
xxx
Bet
1200.00
2570.00
2700.00
conehead
Fold
xxx
Unmatched bet
1200.00
1370.00
3900.00
xxx
Show
J
9
SigmaUK
Show
8
Q
SigmaUK
Win
Pair of 4s
510.00
510.00
xxx
Win
Pair of 4s
860.00
4760.00
XXX promptly went on to iso-raise the short-stacks all-in and double him up the next 2 hands running, getting him well back into contention. Unfortunately XXX eventually knocked out the same guy on the bubble. Sometimes there is no karma in poker.
Day stats:
Played 16 £0.60s W9 L7 Played 1 £1.15 L1 Played 4 £0.30s W1 L3
Hey John, great blog, really good of you to put such detail into it.
I am also currently trying to build up a bank roll from DYMs, i have terrible bank roll managment and love to spew my profits away on MTTs, so i am really going to try with this!
Just a few comments/questions on your blog and challenge... do you not think that with a roll of £17 that starting on the 30p and 60p tables is a bit strict? i am personally going to try with just 10 buy ins from the 60p and try to zip up to the £3.30 DYMs where i will try and move it up to 15/20 buy ins for the next level. Prolonged time at games with 20% rake are soul destroying.
I do understand you are not rushing this and taking any risks (unlike me, to a certain extent).
Also with your "shove no matter what" table, do you think the chip stack values need tweeking through the different levels?
Didn't think there was going to be anything to report from this session (multi-tasking, watching the show etc) until I made a big mistake near the end:
PinkPony
Small blind
150.00
150.00
2290.00
goldie08
Big blind
300.00
450.00
3920.00
Your hole cards
A
6
JohnConnor
Fold
EDWARD42
All-in
615.00
1065.00
0.00
PinkPony
Fold
goldie08
Fold
EDWARD42
Muck
EDWARD42
Win
750.00
750.00
EDWARD42
Return
315.00
0.00
1065.00
Goldie08 was away in the big blind and I didn't notice. By not noticing and failing to raise to 615 (A6 is obviously plenty enough to take on EDWARD42 with) I made it far too easy for goldie08 to almost double up. I'm fairly sure I went on to bubble this game. Concentration is key. (In hindsight I probably should have raised anyway - I blame it being the end of the session and the above mentioned multi-tasking :-))
Day stats:
Played 13 £0.60s W9 L4
Bankroll - £15.57. Slight progress today but still behind starting bankroll.
Hey John, great blog, really good of you to put such detail into it. I am also currently trying to build up a bank roll from DYMs, i have terrible bank roll managment and love to spew my profits away on MTTs, so i am really going to try with this! Just a few comments/questions on your blog and challenge... do you not think that with a roll of £17 that starting on the 30p and 60p tables is a bit strict? i am personally going to try with just 10 buy ins from the 60p and try to zip up to the £3.30 DYMs where i will try and move it up to 15/20 buy ins for the next level. Prolonged time at games with 20% rake are soul destroying. I do understand you are not rushing this and taking any risks (unlike me, to a certain extent). Also with your "shove no matter what" table, do you think the chip stack values need tweeking through the different levels? Posted by salad24
Hi salad, thanks for the kind words.
Unfortunately I have to nip out now, I will address your post properly sometime tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers.
Ok, I'm going to try this as I think I'm pretty good at DYMs and have made progress trying it before before another drunken adventure decimated my BR.
Started yesterday with £50.
Played 4 £5 ones at once and cashed in them all, once with a K10 suck-out vs A10 and another one I flopped quads vs FH in the first orbit for stacks and still only just scraped through. Good start though and will aim to play 40 of them today. I realise it sound like ludicrous BR management but I don't think it's that bad as they're fairly low variance when playing 4 at once I find. We'll see.
Current BR :£68 and think I have about 890 points thus far.
Hey John, great blog, really good of you to put such detail into it. I am also currently trying to build up a bank roll from DYMs, i have terrible bank roll managment and love to spew my profits away on MTTs, so i am really going to try with this! Just a few comments/questions on your blog and challenge... do you not think that with a roll of £17 that starting on the 30p and 60p tables is a bit strict? i am personally going to try with just 10 buy ins from the 60p and try to zip up to the £3.30 DYMs where i will try and move it up to 15/20 buy ins for the next level. Prolonged time at games with 20% rake are soul destroying. I do understand you are not rushing this and taking any risks (unlike me, to a certain extent). Also with your "shove no matter what" table, do you think the chip stack values need tweeking through the different levels? Posted by salad24
Hi again salad, sorry it's taken a while.
Regarding bankroll management, my ideas are outlined in the blog, so I will need at least 20 buy-ins (£23) before moving up to the £1.15 DYMs. You are right I am not going to rush and I am very keen to succeed with the challenge, with that in mind I think 20-22 buy-ins is fine, but if anything a touch on the aggressive side anyway. You could be right that for the £0.60s 20 buy-ins won't be necessary but 10 would definitely be too low, personally I'd be playing scared money then. It's worth noting my first session resulted in a £2.75 (or 4.5 buy-in) loss! Bankroll management is all about your personal goals/circumstances/attitude to risk etc and obviously you're fine starting with 10 buy-ins. I wish you every success in your own challenge and I would look forward to reading some updates on here if you would post them.
Regarding your other question, it's a very good question and I find it very tricky to answer. In fact I've re-written this part a few times now lol. What I think it basically comes down to is this. I don't think they vary according to levels, as such, no. But it can vary according to specific (fairly unusual to be honest) circumstances/fields (I mentioned some factors in the blog that might alter my thinking). As a result of this I think you might find that some adjustments occur more frequently in lower buy-in fields and some in higher ones. But they occur because of the circumstances/field rather than the actual stake, in my opinion.
Comments
Ok skolsuper obv could have been more diplomatic (understatement) with his posts. But he is being slated for two things:
1. Having the temerity to suggest ICM is important in dyms - Im no expert on either but this would seem to be obviously true
2. Stating that he didnt think dyms used a lot of the skills you need in other forms of poker - possibly fair
I dont like dyms either, I think they are the most boring form of poker, but to each their own. I havent read the blog for this reason, but from what I've seen JC post in this forum I'm sure its excellent and a valuable resource for anyone playing them (also huge respect for people who take time to do this kind of thing). But if it doesnt mention ICM its a fair point to make that maybe it should (again maybe not in manner skolsuper did)
One quick question JC. Given the low ROI figures that good players attain. I'm surprised that you advocate playing normal speed, as I would have thought extra volume from playing fastest games possible would make bigger profits due to extra volume (esp at higher stakes), despite having slightly less edge. Thoughts?
EDIT: I realise the reason some people are having a go at skol is because of his manner of posting, fair enough but it doesnt mean his points are not valid
Read your blog the other day, and must say its a very comprehensive guide. Having seen you open shove with junk I now understand the rationale behind your thinking. If you can get your opponents to lay their hand down enough times then its a profitable play. Even if you get called, most times you wont be much more than a 40/60 dog.
Totally agree with your points about c4p, put enough volume in and you can bink a grand even at lower stakes. Sadly I am not a winning DYM player, I discovered that last month when I looked at my scope figs and have gone back to hu sngs (loving the hypers) and play more cash now. Perhaps one day I will read your blog again in more detail and take another stab at dyms.
Finally apologies for the rant a few days ago, loads of testosterone was flying around but its still disapointing to see a pro make such comments. You have clearly put a lot of effort into writing this and it should be commended.
Do you only play hold'em dyms only or do you mix in PLO/PLO8 as well? If so, how does your basic strategy change? Does the higher variance of Omaha combined with the fast structure magnify or neutralise any skill edge a player might have?
You are of course right that only low ROIs are attainable in DYMs. The turbo DYMs offer even lower ROIs. But yes, volumewise, you should really just look at your hourly rate instead of ROIs. I think there are 2 main reasons, though, why I advocate playing the normal DYMs on Sky (and both reasons are pretty specific to Sky):
1) Even though they still last about 40 mins (on average), the normal DYMs on Sky are still pretty fast already, in my opinion, having only 5 minute blinds. The 'Turbocharged' DYMs, with half the stack and 2 minute blinds, are more like 'super-turbos', again, in my opinion. I don't know what ROIs are possible in these games as I haven't got a sample but I would think that it is very low. But, yes, if you could play enough, there may come point where it is more beneficial to you to play these instead. That leads me on to the second reason:
2) I don't think it's possible to play the huge volumes of the 'Turbocharged' DYMs that I think would be required to make them more profitable than standard DYMs on Sky. They are a lot harder to multi-table as I think there is less decision time. I found it difficult playing 4 at a time. With normal DYMs, you can fairly comfortably play 8-10 tables. Also, I'm not sure how often they run compared to normal DYMs, although again I don't have a sample.
I definitely know what you mean when you say 'robotic nature' and there is no denying that. I almost put into the blog about how DYMs can do this and have adverse effects on your game in other formats (Cash/MTT etc). I decided not to as I didn't want to discourage anyone from playing DYMs as they are great, for reasons mentioned in the blog. In any case, and what your question is getting at, you can ensure that playing DYMs doesn't negatively affect your game in other areas.
There a couple of practical things you can do to help here. One thing I found useful on occasion was to just sit there before starting a session and ask yourself, "Am I in the right mindset (i.e. DYM/Cash/MTT whatever) to play these now". Making up (even writing down if necessary) specific scenarios may help certain players here. E.g. Ask yourself, "what will I do if I am dealt pocket 2s UTG first hand?" or "what will I do if someone shoves into me and I have 15BB's holding AK?" To continue the example for the first question one players answers may be as follows:
DYM: open fold
Cash: raise
MTT: limp in to try and see a cheap flop
So long as you are getting the answers right (according to your own strategies) this should help you separate the disciplines.
The other thing is, I would really recommend only playing one discipline at a time. It can get quite confusing trying to juggle 2 different disciplines (e.g. DYM and Cash) and I imagine 3 would be something of a nightmare. This is an easy adjustment to make and I would even recomend doing it as far as possible. What I mean is, don't just say, "I'm only playing DYMs in this session". Try to say instead, "I'm only playing DYMs today/this week/whatever". The less often you mix it up the easier it should be, in my opinion. Of course it may not be practical for players to do this and they may not want to, it is only a suggestion.
Unfortunately, I only play Hold'em DYMs so this answer may disappoint a little. What I will say is that, although I am no good at it, I love Omaha and have had a little success in the one or two small tourneys I have played on here (due to high percentages of the field being even worse than me - I know the basics).
I did once consider playing some Omaha DYMs but I couldn't get my head around how they would work with it being Pot-Limit. A lot of my DYM decisions are shove/fold so I thought Omaha DYMs would be hard near the end. For example, you pick up a hand you want to go with, you raise it with the intention of getting it all-in pre, or on the flop at worse (I'm talking about situations where you would open-shove in Hold'Em). But, you get 3 callers and miss the flop completely. Now you've put half your stack in the middle, there's no way you can win a show-down, and your chip stack is too uncompetitive if you fold. I'm sure there are ways around these problems but I am not good enough at Omaha to know what they are, unfortunately. I did mean to ask IrishRover about them as I understand he is excellent at Omaha DYMs. Perhaps he could enlighten me here and you on your other Omaha related questions...
Hi guys,
As I have mentioned above I am setting myself a challenge. I stated in my blog that I believed that anyone could build a 4 figure roll playing solely DYMs. I intend to do that from a starting BR of £17.12. If anyone fancies joining me in doing this you are more than welcome to and feel free to use this thread to update progress.
My bankroll management will follow what was stated in my blog, moving up when I have 20-22 times the buy-in for the next level. As such I will be starting at the £0.60 level and facing the dreaded 20% rake. Let's see if we can beat it.
I have set no targets as to completion, but I am probably thinking something around Christmas would be good. In the event of failure I'm not 100% sure but I think I will reload £30 or so and start again at the £1.15 level. I hope it doesn't come to that, though.
Following will be my Day 1 post (actually played Thursday), I am currently playing Day 2.
Was extremely pleasing to start with, reaching the bubble during level 1 in each of the first 2 £0.60 games. As I said in the blog, money in my pocket, ka-ching!!! Unfortunately, though, it didn't translate to actual money in my pocket on these occassions.
At the start of one of the mini-sessions, as the £0.60s, weren't filling too quickly (I was going to 4-table), I reg'd for a £1.15. I promptly ran trips into trips sb vs bb and was out. This is why we don't break our bankroll management rules, I won't be doing that again anytime soon.
Something that did stand out was understanding of the 'co-operation play' I mentioned in the blog. The first time it occurred we both checked it down and eliminated the short-stack, happy days. The second time we checked around a flop and I thought, this is good to see, the £0.60 players understand the play. Then, out of nowhere, a small-stack (with a micro-stack all-in) bets all-in into me, (risking his DYM life as I am the big-stack). I can afford the call but opt to lay down second pair no kicker, fully expecting to be shown the nuts. He turns over a gut-shot + undercards to the board. Hmmmmm. Then this hand happens!
Day stats:
Played 16 £0.60s W9 L7
Played 1 £1.15 L1
Played 4 £0.30s W1 L3
Bankroll - £14.37. An unhappy start.
just trying a few out now, will let u know my decision tomorrow!
Didn't think there was going to be anything to report from this session (multi-tasking, watching the show etc) until I made a big mistake near the end:
Day stats:
Played 13 £0.60s W9 L4
Bankroll - £15.57. Slight progress today but still behind starting bankroll.
Unfortunately I have to nip out now, I will address your post properly sometime tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers.
Started yesterday with £50.
Played 4 £5 ones at once and cashed in them all, once with a K10 suck-out vs A10 and another one I flopped quads vs FH in the first orbit for stacks and still only just scraped through. Good start though and will aim to play 40 of them today. I realise it sound like ludicrous BR management but I don't think it's that bad as they're fairly low variance when playing 4 at once I find. We'll see.
Current BR :£68 and think I have about 890 points thus far.
Regarding bankroll management, my ideas are outlined in the blog, so I will need at least 20 buy-ins (£23) before moving up to the £1.15 DYMs. You are right I am not going to rush and I am very keen to succeed with the challenge, with that in mind I think 20-22 buy-ins is fine, but if anything a touch on the aggressive side anyway. You could be right that for the £0.60s 20 buy-ins won't be necessary but 10 would definitely be too low, personally I'd be playing scared money then. It's worth noting my first session resulted in a £2.75 (or 4.5 buy-in) loss! Bankroll management is all about your personal goals/circumstances/attitude to risk etc and obviously you're fine starting with 10 buy-ins. I wish you every success in your own challenge and I would look forward to reading some updates on here if you would post them.
Regarding your other question, it's a very good question and I find it very tricky to answer. In fact I've re-written this part a few times now lol. What I think it basically comes down to is this. I don't think they vary according to levels, as such, no. But it can vary according to specific (fairly unusual to be honest) circumstances/fields (I mentioned some factors in the blog that might alter my thinking). As a result of this I think you might find that some adjustments occur more frequently in lower buy-in fields and some in higher ones. But they occur because of the circumstances/field rather than the actual stake, in my opinion.