Poker Superstars
Phil Hellmuth
|
|
Game Selection & Bankroll Management |
 Today I want to think a bit about bankroll management. This is often an overlooked and/or completely ignored part of non-pro players’ games, though it should be regarded with as much relevance as not playing drunk or tired, and not playing garbage hands. If you aren’t keeping tabs on your bankroll and where you’re at, and by this I mean beyond the simple “I have an extra hundred this week, might as well throw it on a table,” then you are asking in the long run to not know where you’ll be.
Poker, like any other kind of ‘investment’ venture, is a game in which money management is key. One of the major things a lot of pros mention when they discuss what level of game you should be playing at isn’t a matter of how good you are, but how much money you have at your expense. It only takes a couple bad beats at a $1/$2 no limit table to reduce a $400 reserve to nothing, so if you aren’t loaded and you’re playing these stakes, you’re pretty much asking for a short run, or to be put against the wall.
You have to play within your means. I am not of the school that suggests you need 20 proper buy-ins to justify playing at a certain level. For a lot of us, this isn’t feasible. A good buy in at a $1/$2 table is $200, so if you need 20 of those, they are suggesting you have $4000 at your expense before you sit down at this kind of table.
$1/$2 no limit has always been my preferred stake. I like the low cost of blinds and the fact that you can still hit your hand and get paid a couple hundred in the right circumstances. I do not however, have $4000 that I consider poker money. Does this mean I shouldn’t play at this level? A pro would likely say yes. Though honestly, in the long run I have seen much better results in my game playing $1/$2 than the suggested $.50/$1 game or even the $.25/$.50 game that my bankroll would suggest I play.
At the same time, though, if I lose a couple hundred, it isn’t going to kill me. I can ‘reload’ the money I consider poker money, if need be, so perhaps I am in a different boat than others.
1/2 no limit has always been the most satisfying for me, though, and where I am most comfortable. I have tried playing lower limits as pros would suggest to try and rise ‘correctly’ among the ranks, but in the long run I’ve seen this actually going against me rather than for me. Because the limits are so cheap I end up coming in with a much wider range of hands and find that I gamble more at the lower stakes tables because it doesn’t bother me to do so.
Playing at $1/$2 or higher, I actually see my productivity go up. This might be a matter of discipline, but for me, I believe that the added value of what I’ll call ‘implied discipline’ increases not only by winning amount per hand, but also increases my attentiveness and ‘skill level’. Dropping back down adds to the ‘chaos’ factor of my game and so in the long run, my money is better ‘invested’ at a table where I am ‘out of bounds’ by professional odds.
If I lose too much with the larger swings, I simply sit out until I can afford to play again.
This kind of thinking is important to a player who considers himself in it for the long haul, as in order to succeed over time you need to put yourself in the situation that most allows you your A game, which I think is something slightly deferred by pros in their analysis of game selection.
For me, I’d rather play with an advantage and risk having to sit out, but other players may think differently. As long as you know what most suits you, and keep tabs on where you’re going, I think you’re better off than just sticking to a black and white distinction.
|
|
|
.jpg){kind=small}
