On another forum, I saw a moving up bankroll thread where Mute commented that he and Gregories bankroll theory was similiar even though it left them playing in games that were too big from their BR.

I was wondering if either of you guys could expand on what that theory is?

Tom

Tek, while I agree with both mute and greg that moving up and down rapidly is probably the most +EV approach I am not sure is the best approach for all people. Greg hit on this a little bit in his post, it really depends on your goals. If you goals are to make a ton of money in the long term then definitely take some shots at larger games. However, if your goals are more short term or your goals aren’t solely to make money then a different approach may be better for you.

For me I am currently bankrolled for $600 PLO8 games and I am fairly sure I have the skills to play it (I haven’t watched too much of it but I have watched a lot of $400 and I am good enough to beat that game), but my goals aren’t solely money based. For me, I really enjoy seeing steady improvement and really hate losing. I have an excel spreadsheet for all my sessions and there is nothing I enjoy more then seeing a nice clean exponential growth in my BR. What I hate seeing are cliffs, and greg / mutes approach will create a lot of cliffs. Furthermore, I don’t need the money so I don’t really care if the graph is across $100 or $10000 (I would prefer $10000 but it isn’t my primary goal).

I guess that is a long winded way of saying you need to figure out what you want out of poker, then you can set a bankroll strategy accordingly.