I've always been torn by two opposing forces when managing my BR:

(1) I want to play games that seem "big enough" when I am eager to devote my full attention and play my best or just take a shot at a higher-stakes table that looks soft ... but ...

(2) Much of the time, my attention is half-ass or I'm clearing a bonus and just don't want to lose dough.

I was using a 2500xBB NL guideline, so with my BR at $6400 right now, my highest NL game is NL$1/2. The problem is that when I'm playing half-assed or bonus-whoring with 6 tables going, I sometimes get burned in these games or find myself playing far below my best. But I feel that playing lower stakes has opportunity costs since I could be playing higher according to my guidelines. Also, even if I'm playing pretty well, bad beats or tough hands happen, but I always feel sick when I lose a $200 buy-in (or even just $100) trying to clear a $100 bonus. This frustrates me so much as I feel I wasted my time unlocking the bonus.

On the other hand, I also hate when I'm really eager to play my best but am limited to playing up to only $200. In the past when I've been more liberal with guidelines (i.e., ignored them), my best runs were always when I took shots at higher games and played my best. Sure, you shouldn't play above your roll, but when I'm focused I just feel my play is so much sharper (also explains why I think I'm better live). When I have played live, I just take some cash (not from online BR) and have never lost it (bringing only 3 buy-ins), so I certainly don't have a 2500xBB rule for live play and have done fine.

Also, after reading DoubleAs blog, he says his regret while building up was playing too safe with his roll -- he advocates playing with up to 20% of your roll on the table. That is a recipe for total disaster if you are multi-tabling, surfing, watching a game, and browsing a forum simultaneously!

So, thinking about this last night, I had a "Eureka" moment -- and it is so stupidly simple. The solution is just to have 2 sets of guidelines: (1) your A-game rules, and (2) your B-game rules. (Yeah, I know, wasn't that tough, was it?)

Now every poker book you read will say "don't play unless you are playing your A-game" -- but that is flat-out horsecrap in today's online environment. You can multi-table 6 low stakes games and be playing well enough to at least break even (or even drop a few BB) but be making a decent hourly rate clearing bonuses and/or getting rake back. So, unlike a live game which most authors are used to, your B-game (I'll just call anything not totally focused your B-game) can still keep your roll building, pass the time, whatever. And face it, we're too addicted to not play even when we don't want to lock in.

I like the dual rules because it forces me to more explicitly (and honestly) decide what my purpose is each session. If I want to take a shot at a soft table and play my best -- I can (and without the uneasy feeling that I'm breaking my own rules), and if I am honest with myself and know I won't be playing my best, then I also am more comfortable because I know I won't be playing very high stakes. I know that if I take a loss playing my A-game rules, I can patiently build it back under my B-game rules relatively quickly with multi-tabling and bonuses.

Here's the guidelines I was generally using:

Old rules:
NL/PL (Holdem) -- 2500 big blinds
NL/PL (Omaha) -- 5000 big blinds
Limit (any) -- 500 big bets
Tourneys (MTT/SNG) -- 50 buy-ins

Alas, the long-awaited new rules (which are still very conservative, I think):

A-game rules:
NL/PL (Holdem) -- 1000 big blinds
NL/PL (Omaha) -- 2000 big blinds
Limit (any) -- 300 big bets
Tourneys (MTT/SNG) -- 50 buy-ins

B-game rules:
NL/PL (any) -- 5000 big blinds
Limit (any) -- 1000 big bets

As you can see, my A-game rules are "looser" than my old rules, whereas my B-game rules are significantly tighter. Tourneys don't change as one should be playing A-game for a tourney or why play it?

Look at what this means with my current $6400 playing roll. Under old rules, I could play up to NL$1/2 or limit $5/10. Under the new rules, my A-game allows up to NL$3/6 or limit $10/20. However, my passing-the-time multi-table B-game is restricted to NL$0.5/1 and limit $3/6. These are quite reasonable and certainly adequate stakes to clear bonuses relatively quickly still with less risk.

One thing I've noticed is that you find guidelines in posts/books etc. (like the 300 BB rule), but its not explicit how to apply them. When using these guidelines, I use the following principle: if you meet the guidelines, you can sit at a table with a full buy-in (100 BB for NL/PL, or 25 BBets for limit). If you drop below the criteria, you must move down. This allows the "taking shots effect" as you transition between limits. For example, with my $6400 roll, if I lose a full buy-in at NL$3/6 ($600), then I'm left with $5800. That is no longer 1000 BB at NL$3/6, so my max game is now NL$2/4. You get the idea.

I haven't read any recommendations like this before (besides "take a shot every now and again ..." without any details), and I'm sure many of us use a similar system implicitly anyway (like playing lower stakes when multi-tabling, etc.). But I like hard and fast rules to keep me in check.

Anyway, sorry for the super long post.

I actually kind of like your plan. It seems well thought out. Its also very hard to lose 10 buyins to a game..so yeah, you could still call that conservative.

This seems like a good way for a semi-pro to build a bankroll more quickly.

I don't think this plan works for me, however. I take a lot of money out every month...it's what I live off of. I can't take the risk.

I find it curious that doubleas said he should have put 20% of his roll on the table. is he nuts? Or is he just trying to intice lower buyin people to play his limits? I don't know how you guys feel...but if I lost 20% of my bankroll on one hand...i'd be exteremely pissed.And it's hard to piss me off.

I've also read DoubleAs blog... it was a few days ago however and I don't feel like going back and reading it again. From what I remember, he was just saying that he wished he hadn't moved up so slowly and if he could do it over he would have taken slightly bigger risks. When he said he should have put 20% of his roll on the table, what he meant was that after a week of killing the limit he was at he wished he would have tried a higher limit, because we all know that the first time you play a new limit you are playing very sharp and usually pretty tight (or at least tighter than you usually would). Basically, after you had one session at the higher limit you would then make your decision of trying to move up faster (perhaps with 10x the buy-in instead of 30-40, or 150BB instead of 300 *for limit). Very nice post Kid, I completely agree about the A-game thing. I've noticed that when I have multiple tables open I cannot concentrate enough to really play a solid game; I just play on auto-pilot. However, when I was first starting out with a relatively small bankroll, I HAD to concentrate on every single table I played. I would only play one or two and I'd have notes on all the players. It's much easier to win small that way, but multitabling still brings higher returns..