The subject of bankrolls and how much money to have behind you gets talked about an awful lot and just like anything else, most of it is WRONG. Much of this RUBBISH has been spoken by people who have never played poker or gambled in their entire lives. I have my very own attitude towards bankrolls and financing my playing that has worked very well for me.
Firstly let me state something blatantly obvious, a poker bankroll will not turn a losing player into a winning player. When you hear about big stakes players frequently going bust then so much for bankrolls. But I have always argued that any part time semi-professional player simply does not need one if they have other sources of income that is disposable.
For example, let us take what used to be my bread and butter game of $30-$60 Limit Holdem poker once upon a time. All the books say that any working pro who wins at a rate of one big bet an hour ($60) needs at least 300 big bets to avoid going broke. But that is $18,000 which is a very substantial amount of money to many people. But what if you don’t have that kind of money then does this mean that you can never play 30-60.
But what if you do have that kind of money, does this mean that you can automatically jump right in, I say no to both. What if you have the skills to play 30-60 holdem but not the mindset to want to risk 18K. What if the mere thought of having this mental eighteen grand disturbs you so much that it drags you away from your optimal game. Also, what about the guy who starts off playing at 30-60 with his 18K bankroll and despite being a very good poker player, is down $9000 after a couple of months and then packs it in because the fear of losing it all has affected him.
Any player that does this has not in theory started with $18,000 but actually $9000 and a 9K bankroll is not big enough for 30-60. But the mathematicians in the gambling world make me laugh because they churn pathetic advice out to people that is based on figures and nothing but figures as if Hold’em poker online is played by emotionless robots. Much of what they talk about is unworkable for many people and looks good when seen on paper or in a book.
It is exactly the same principle with financial advice, it would be blatantly wrong to advise someone to transfer money from a much lower interest bank account to an investment that was linked to the stock market all because the FTSE had risen by an average of 10% per year since it was formed and the bank account in question was only providing 3% at best without finding out certain things about the nature of that person first. Look out for the second part of this article elsewhere on the site.
Carl “The Dean” Sampson
