Welcome back and good job with the obscene 100%+ ROI (again!)
What's the plan as the bankroll gets inevitably larger? Will you keep looking to push yourself into bigger buy-in games or settle at a certain point for some regular pocket money?
P.S. It's merely a coincidence that I stopped playing much cash at the same you packed it in. Honest .
Welcome back and good job with the obscene 100%+ ROI (again!)
What's the plan as the bankroll gets inevitably larger? Will you keep looking to push yourself into bigger buy-in games or settle at a certain point for some regular pocket money?
P.S. It's merely a coincidence that I stopped playing much cash at the same you packed it in. Honest .
Just a coincidence I started wanting to play MTTs more when I saw you flopping around in the player pool every day
Bankroll-wise I think it would be cool to get to a point where you could conceivably play whatever tournament schedule you wanted on any given day, just because you fancied it, and be rolled for it. That sounds like a nice thing
And yourself? Will you be moving up stakes or sticking to the current (seemingly effective) plan?
Welcome back and good job with the obscene 100%+ ROI (again!)
What's the plan as the bankroll gets inevitably larger? Will you keep looking to push yourself into bigger buy-in games or settle at a certain point for some regular pocket money?
P.S. It's merely a coincidence that I stopped playing much cash at the same you packed it in. Honest .
I do find this sort of thing interesting. Knowing your level is quite key to maximising your poker income but it is also good to challenge yourself in some harder games and also it is fun to take some shots for the chance of a big score. Also with our poker ability always changing and also our opponents ability changing our level is always in flux so our level now will potentially differ in say 6months time.
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
Or as another example of the above, video here of Doug Polk talking about playing against Wilhasha who apparently technically/theoretically wasn't as good as a lot of his competition at HUNL but used to crush people by making them play at higher stakes than they were comfortable with and then steamrolling them!
Would love it if there were some system to measure these kinds of things and how much they could increase or decrease your ROI/winrate.
Ok, last (possibly...) bit of waffle to add to this for now...
Have always felt that low stakes are easier to beat than the real micro/nano stakes. Talking about MTTs, not cash where higher rake is going to be a factor. Just attributed it to not being able to construct a range for opponents because often their range is whatever 2 cards they feel like at that particular moment! Also having way less fold equity in general.
I wonder if the actual monetary stakes being really small doesn't help either. Obviously some additional edge comes from putting people in uncomfortable situations at the business end of the tournament, and if the stakes are so low that people don't give a fudge about bubbles or laddering then that particular edge is greatly reduced. Moving up to where they respect your raises basically
This is probably 'well duh that's obvious' stuff but I find it interesting anyway!
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
I think there is a link between the two. Firstly I don't know why you would have a huge bankroll but be broke IRL but I get the idea of your example. This kind of thing is likely where someone say makes the FT of the main which they could be very rolled for playing but they may be working full time and it could be a reasonable chunk of say a months wages ftw. It is hard to criticise anyone for playing a bit tighter if the pay jumps are say a weeks wages.
Quite often you get threads where people say about going pro and one of the key things they get told is about being rolled appropriately. That means both having an appropriate roll for your games but also having say 6months bill money set aside.
Although I think this can be in a positive or negative way. If amounts involved don't mean as much we can make punty plays. If amounts are too much then we maybe don't fire that bluff when we know we should.
I do think different players cope with stuff like this in different ways. Some are super good at being completely detached from the money side of it and that must lead to better results if they can play completely optimally (assuming they have the roll with it).
Doug Polk made a module for the Upswing Lab on the back of completing his bankroll challenge and he went into this in some detail. When he was playing seriously, he took the view that ring-fencing a certain proportion of his net worth away from poker would be foolish as it would prevent him from moving up more quickly and playing in games where his expected return would be far greater than any real world investment he could make with those funds instead (so long as he continued to be disciplined with his BRM). I guess this willingness to push yourself and really go for it is the kind of attitude which propelled most of the super high stakes players to the top. However, I also think it's an easier thing to do if your specialising in something like HU cash compared to MTT's as you're a little less effected by the massive impact that variance over a significant time period can have with tournaments. Being (or a least feeling like) you're one of the very best in the world probably helps too!
I've only played one reasonably high stakes online MTT which was a Ukops £220 event that I was lucky enough to bag a free seat in (and even more fortunate to go on and win). Once I'd picked up a few bounties and had already secured my biggest ever score, I felt rather liberated and was going to be super happy whatever the outcome from that point onward, so I actually played with far less apprehension than I had before or since in much smaller events. Whether of not I'd feel the same if the pay jumps were £100k+ is something else entirely, but I sure hope I get to find out one day
Bankroll-wise I think it would be cool to get to a point where you could conceivably play whatever tournament schedule you wanted on any given day, just because you fancied it, and be rolled for it. That sounds like a nice thing
And yourself? Will you be moving up stakes or sticking to the current (seemingly effective) plan?
For now I'll be continuing my MTT adventures in the same vein. My lifetime sample size is still pretty small and I'd like to get some more volume in at my current level first to see whether or not I've just been a fish on a heater so far. I also need to get on the MTT study grind a lot more too - I've done virtually nothing on that front really and still feel relatively clueless as a tournament player.
I'm quite interested in this "I can beat X level, so now I'll move up & beat Y level".
If you can be reasonably confident of pocketing, say, £100 (or £300, £500 or whatever) per week over a sustained period, maybe it's better to stay there & just keep printing?
Think the old adage that we all rise to the level of our incompetence and when we get there, we lose it all of course. It applies, of course, as much in real life as i does in poker. People in business so often get promoted beyond their level of competence, then get the tin tack when it all goes horribly wrong.
I think it's always worth taking shots as long as the bankroll permits. Nothing ventured nothing gained. It's not dropping back down the levels when required that can cause a problem.
I think it's always worth taking shots as long as the bankroll permits. Nothing ventured nothing gained. It's not dropping back down the levels when required that can cause a problem.
I get your point for sure, and it's always fun to fire a shot at something big each week! Problem starts, as you say, with not moving back down, but also playing too many games where you have a questionable win rate at the expense of games you know you're beating at a decent whack.
Eg, you see some players breeze through micros and move up to low/mid-stakes and just flounder around there forever winning at single digit ROIs. If they'd played lower or kept some of the lower games too they would have made a lot more profit.
There is the challenge and competition element though of course - wanting to test yourself against better players and improve your game, which I'm sure everyone wants to some extent! Think there's an ego thing too about playing higher which we're probably all guilty of
I'm quite interested in this "I can beat X level, so now I'll move up & beat Y level".
If you can be reasonably confident of pocketing, say, £100 (or £300, £500 or whatever) per week over a sustained period, maybe it's better to stay there & just keep printing?
Think the old adage that we all rise to the level of our incompetence and when we get there, we lose it all of course. It applies, of course, as much in real life as i does in poker. People in business so often get promoted beyond their level of competence, then get the tin tack when it all goes horribly wrong.
Got a lot of time for this analogy!
I suppose there's a motivation element too. If you're doing well at something and working to improve to get to the next thing, if you take away the option of moving up to the next step would you stop working to improve yourself? Everyone's motivated by slightly different things I guess!
Doug Polk made a module for the Upswing Lab on the back of completing his bankroll challenge and he went into this in some detail. When he was playing seriously, he took the view that ring-fencing a certain proportion of his net worth away from poker would be foolish as it would prevent him from moving up more quickly and playing in games where his expected return would be far greater than any real world investment he could make with those funds instead (so long as he continued to be disciplined with his BRM). I guess this willingness to push yourself and really go for it is the kind of attitude which propelled most of the super high stakes players to the top. However, I also think it's an easier thing to do if your specialising in something like HU cash compared to MTT's as you're a little less effected by the massive impact that variance over a significant time period can have with tournaments. Being (or a least feeling like) you're one of the very best in the world probably helps too!
I've only played one reasonably high stakes online MTT which was a Ukops £220 event that I was lucky enough to bag a free seat in (and even more fortunate to go on and win). Once I'd picked up a few bounties and had already secured my biggest ever score, I felt rather liberated and was going to be super happy whatever the outcome from that point onward, so I actually played with far less apprehension than I had before or since in much smaller events. Whether of not I'd feel the same if the pay jumps were £100k+ is something else entirely, but I sure hope I get to find out one day
Very interesting indeed! If you can be bothered, could you go into more detail on what DP said? Always wondered how much these high stakes guys pay themselves out of their winnings (you know, to buy food and stuff) as opposed to trying to keep climbing the stakes as fast as possible.
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
I think there is a link between the two. Firstly I don't know why you would have a huge bankroll but be broke IRL but I get the idea of your example. This kind of thing is likely where someone say makes the FT of the main which they could be very rolled for playing but they may be working full time and it could be a reasonable chunk of say a months wages ftw. It is hard to criticise anyone for playing a bit tighter if the pay jumps are say a weeks wages.
Quite often you get threads where people say about going pro and one of the key things they get told is about being rolled appropriately. That means both having an appropriate roll for your games but also having say 6months bill money set aside.
Although I think this can be in a positive or negative way. If amounts involved don't mean as much we can make punty plays. If amounts are too much then we maybe don't fire that bluff when we know we should.
I do think different players cope with stuff like this in different ways. Some are super good at being completely detached from the money side of it and that must lead to better results if they can play completely optimally (assuming they have the roll with it).
That's true. So you play quite a mix of buy-ins, do you personally still try to focus as much at a £5.50 FT (or whatever your smallest stake is these days) compared to higher stakes?
Ok maybe better example than huge bankroll/broke would be being backed by a stable (so essentially infinite bankroll for whatever the backers let them play) but very little IRL money, or maybe deep in makeup.
Doug Polk made a module for the Upswing Lab on the back of completing his bankroll challenge and he went into this in some detail. When he was playing seriously, he took the view that ring-fencing a certain proportion of his net worth away from poker would be foolish as it would prevent him from moving up more quickly and playing in games where his expected return would be far greater than any real world investment he could make with those funds instead (so long as he continued to be disciplined with his BRM). I guess this willingness to push yourself and really go for it is the kind of attitude which propelled most of the super high stakes players to the top. However, I also think it's an easier thing to do if your specialising in something like HU cash compared to MTT's as you're a little less effected by the massive impact that variance over a significant time period can have with tournaments. Being (or a least feeling like) you're one of the very best in the world probably helps too!
I've only played one reasonably high stakes online MTT which was a Ukops £220 event that I was lucky enough to bag a free seat in (and even more fortunate to go on and win). Once I'd picked up a few bounties and had already secured my biggest ever score, I felt rather liberated and was going to be super happy whatever the outcome from that point onward, so I actually played with far less apprehension than I had before or since in much smaller events. Whether of not I'd feel the same if the pay jumps were £100k+ is something else entirely, but I sure hope I get to find out one day
Very interesting indeed! If you can be bothered, could you go into more detail on what DP said? Always wondered how much these high stakes guys pay themselves out of their winnings (you know, to buy food and stuff) as opposed to trying to keep climbing the stakes as fast as possible.
I'm afraid he didn't go into those kind of specifics with regards to his own career. I guess many just take out whatever their monthly living expenses are and plough the remaining profits back into the bankroll.
His overall view on BRM was very much taken from the perspective of being a professional poker player. With that in mind, it's highly focused on striving to reach the peak of wherever ones abilities lie and maximising profits/opportunities, so he's rather critical of those who are too afraid to take shots at the next level up from the one they are currently beating (I obviously zoned out at this point ).
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
I think there is a link between the two. Firstly I don't know why you would have a huge bankroll but be broke IRL but I get the idea of your example. This kind of thing is likely where someone say makes the FT of the main which they could be very rolled for playing but they may be working full time and it could be a reasonable chunk of say a months wages ftw. It is hard to criticise anyone for playing a bit tighter if the pay jumps are say a weeks wages.
Quite often you get threads where people say about going pro and one of the key things they get told is about being rolled appropriately. That means both having an appropriate roll for your games but also having say 6months bill money set aside.
Although I think this can be in a positive or negative way. If amounts involved don't mean as much we can make punty plays. If amounts are too much then we maybe don't fire that bluff when we know we should.
I do think different players cope with stuff like this in different ways. Some are super good at being completely detached from the money side of it and that must lead to better results if they can play completely optimally (assuming they have the roll with it).
That's true. So you play quite a mix of buy-ins, do you personally still try to focus as much at a £5.50 FT (or whatever your smallest stake is these days) compared to higher stakes?
Ok maybe better example than huge bankroll/broke would be being backed by a stable (so essentially infinite bankroll for whatever the backers let them play) but very little IRL money, or maybe deep in makeup.
On my monitor I fit in 6 tables and then have space for another 6 tables on laptop screen. Top middle is key game generally the main or a FT then around that is next most important games. I tend to try and group similar stuff together so mini will go below main. If I have a few sats then they may go on laptop screen. Having sats in same place is quite important as snap calls in a bh can be snap folds in a sat. On the main screen its higher buy in games and deeper games. This means I give more focus to more important decisions, eg bigger buy ins/deeper games. Early stages of £22bh you shouldn't have as key decisions as last 2 tables of a £5.50bh so even though buy in is smaller the £5.50bh would get more prominent position.
The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up. I do think there has to be a link between roll/game selection and life roll. Sometimes you should go lower variance game selection (prob lower ROI) and give yourself a better chance of some profit and get yourself straight which helps you financially but also will be better for you mentally. Getting say 10th in a mass field MTT where top 3 would sort your financial position out and 10th gets you relatively little isn't going to be good for you mentally.
Comments
What's the plan as the bankroll gets inevitably larger? Will you keep looking to push yourself into bigger buy-in games or settle at a certain point for some regular pocket money?
P.S. It's merely a coincidence that I stopped playing much cash at the same you packed it in. Honest
Hmm. It just so happens I quit cash around this time too, the plot thickens...
And yourself? Will you be moving up stakes or sticking to the current (seemingly effective) plan?
Decent graph Angmar, wp and keep it going!
Yeah I often wonder if I would be best sticking to low stakes which I know I can beat with a decent win rate and concentrating on that. On the other hand, as you say, it's good to have a challenge and also I think the feeling that you're progressing can be really motivating as well. Having something to aim for and work towards, etc.
Another example would be @Duesenberg with cash games preferring to print with low variance at 20nl-30nl despite being capable of playing higher. Except he got bored and plays MTTs now!
Somewhat off-topic but have been wondering recently whether there should be some sort of link between bankroll and life roll. As an extreme example, if you had a huge bankroll but were stone broke IRL I would imagine swings would hurt and lead to suboptimal play despite being rolled for them! The more I get into it the more I find the funds management side of poker and it's psychological effects really fascinating. Timex said in an interview once that if he and a random guy off the street played HU for $1 he would obviously have an edge, but if they played for $1000 his edge would be amplified tremendously due to having the bankroll for the game and being comfortable at those stakes where the other guy wouldn't be.
Would love it if there were some system to measure these kinds of things and how much they could increase or decrease your ROI/winrate.
Have always felt that low stakes are easier to beat than the real micro/nano stakes. Talking about MTTs, not cash where higher rake is going to be a factor. Just attributed it to not being able to construct a range for opponents because often their range is whatever 2 cards they feel like at that particular moment! Also having way less fold equity in general.
I wonder if the actual monetary stakes being really small doesn't help either. Obviously some additional edge comes from putting people in uncomfortable situations at the business end of the tournament, and if the stakes are so low that people don't give a fudge about bubbles or laddering then that particular edge is greatly reduced. Moving up to where they respect your raises basically
This is probably 'well duh that's obvious' stuff but I find it interesting anyway!
Quite often you get threads where people say about going pro and one of the key things they get told is about being rolled appropriately. That means both having an appropriate roll for your games but also having say 6months bill money set aside.
Although I think this can be in a positive or negative way. If amounts involved don't mean as much we can make punty plays. If amounts are too much then we maybe don't fire that bluff when we know we should.
I do think different players cope with stuff like this in different ways. Some are super good at being completely detached from the money side of it and that must lead to better results if they can play completely optimally (assuming they have the roll with it).
Doug Polk made a module for the Upswing Lab on the back of completing his bankroll challenge and he went into this in some detail. When he was playing seriously, he took the view that ring-fencing a certain proportion of his net worth away from poker would be foolish as it would prevent him from moving up more quickly and playing in games where his expected return would be far greater than any real world investment he could make with those funds instead (so long as he continued to be disciplined with his BRM). I guess this willingness to push yourself and really go for it is the kind of attitude which propelled most of the super high stakes players to the top. However, I also think it's an easier thing to do if your specialising in something like HU cash compared to MTT's as you're a little less effected by the massive impact that variance over a significant time period can have with tournaments. Being (or a least feeling like) you're one of the very best in the world probably helps too!
I've only played one reasonably high stakes online MTT which was a Ukops £220 event that I was lucky enough to bag a free seat in (and even more fortunate to go on and win). Once I'd picked up a few bounties and had already secured my biggest ever score, I felt rather liberated and was going to be super happy whatever the outcome from that point onward, so I actually played with far less apprehension than I had before or since in much smaller events. Whether of not I'd feel the same if the pay jumps were £100k+ is something else entirely, but I sure hope I get to find out one day
Fascinating stuff.
I'm quite interested in this "I can beat X level, so now I'll move up & beat Y level".
If you can be reasonably confident of pocketing, say, £100 (or £300, £500 or whatever) per week over a sustained period, maybe it's better to stay there & just keep printing?
Think the old adage that we all rise to the level of our incompetence and when we get there, we lose it all of course. It applies, of course, as much in real life as i does in poker. People in business so often get promoted beyond their level of competence, then get the tin tack when it all goes horribly wrong.
Eg, you see some players breeze through micros and move up to low/mid-stakes and just flounder around there forever winning at single digit ROIs. If they'd played lower or kept some of the lower games too they would have made a lot more profit.
There is the challenge and competition element though of course - wanting to test yourself against better players and improve your game, which I'm sure everyone wants to some extent! Think there's an ego thing too about playing higher which we're probably all guilty of
I suppose there's a motivation element too. If you're doing well at something and working to improve to get to the next thing, if you take away the option of moving up to the next step would you stop working to improve yourself? Everyone's motivated by slightly different things I guess!
Ok maybe better example than huge bankroll/broke would be being backed by a stable (so essentially infinite bankroll for whatever the backers let them play) but very little IRL money, or maybe deep in makeup.
His overall view on BRM was very much taken from the perspective of being a professional poker player. With that in mind, it's highly focused on striving to reach the peak of wherever ones abilities lie and maximising profits/opportunities, so he's rather critical of those who are too afraid to take shots at the next level up from the one they are currently beating (I obviously zoned out at this point
On the main screen its higher buy in games and deeper games. This means I give more focus to more important decisions, eg bigger buy ins/deeper games. Early stages of £22bh you shouldn't have as key decisions as last 2 tables of a £5.50bh so even though buy in is smaller the £5.50bh would get more prominent position.
The make up situation is a very interesting one. Key for both backer and player is to keep the player motivated and making optimal decisions. If make up is big there can be the tendency for players to punt in smaller games or just reg games where they can make a big dent in make up. I do think there has to be a link between roll/game selection and life roll. Sometimes you should go lower variance game selection (prob lower ROI) and give yourself a better chance of some profit and get yourself straight which helps you financially but also will be better for you mentally. Getting say 10th in a mass field MTT where top 3 would sort your financial position out and 10th gets you relatively little isn't going to be good for you mentally.