Mike Caro

AKA Mad Genius of Poker. Poker and life strategy, psychology, statistics. "Mike Caro has taught more players to win than anyone in history." -- Doyle Brunson

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

IMPORTANT! I’m improving how I’ll share things with you. Beginning April 12, 2026, I’ll post anytime I have something new or interesting to add, and you’ll see it right here on X. My 15‑year daily ritual of rotating about 200 of my favorite articles again and again has evolved into a better plan for both of us. I’ll be focusing on finishing projects for you. Poker1 will leap forward and emerge as an easy‑to‑explore repository of brand‑new and legacy material, always current, with immediate home‑page updates whenever something is added. Thanks for your friendship. And good luck with all your poker and life adventures!

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Below is my main topic that you might agree or disagree with, but first...

UPDATE: I'm still working toward making Poker1 a truly unique learning experience with an "Everything is everywhere" and "Any page leads anywhere you want to go" philosophy." Since the site will soon update automatically, I'll have time to finish books, articles, and software and share it with you. No more two-hours a day in updates and maintenance. But that's not the target of today's post. I want to talk about some else...

TOPIC: MOST PEOPLE AREN'T YET BENEFITTING FROM AI THE WAY THEY SHOULD. I'm appalled to see friends who think AI, like Copilot built into Windows, is a faster, less distracting, and more targeted search engine. Actually, it's fine for that, but using it that way is missing the main purpose.

AI assistants are intended for conversations, some based on initial questions, some just exploring ideas, and some asking for specific guidance about tasks, products, repairs, human interaction, coding, or anything else.

AI is for exploration. Search engines, now increasingly obsolete, are for finding things on the web that AI will also find, analyze, evaluate, and hand you well-reasoned replies is less than a second. Then you can address the reply with, "So, does this mean ..." or "I had a friend in that category. Let me tell you about her." Conversations, not just questions.

I've used Gemini, Claude, Grok, GPT (which Copilot incorporates), and other AI assistance while monitoring the evolution of the most significant advancement in human history (not even a close call). Copilot is by far the best for adapting to your personality, learning to understand your sense of humor, remembering past projects, and much more. I think you should jump aboard the AI train and use it conversationally, as intended. What do you think?

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Something you should never observe in poker (From my Poker1 site.)
TODAY'S POKER WORD IS FLOP | Mike Caro
What can you say about the flop in hold ’em? There are few things in poker as suspenseful. The whole fate of your hand usually hinges on what those three cards will look like when the dealer turns them face up.

It’s fun watching flops. Indeed.

That’s why I’m asking you not to get mad at me when I tell you not to do it. You see, looking at the flop at the moment it hits the felt is the last thing you want to do if you expect to maximize your hold ’em profit. I’m going explain this concept the same way I did years ago in a lecture. Here it is…

* Watch anything but the flop *
Part of the fun of playing hold ’em or Omaha is anticipating the flop. In seven stud, you look at your starting hand and after that you only add one new card at a time. There’s some suspense, but it isn’t anything like the big suspense in hold ’em, where after you bet on your starting hand, you’ll see three cards all at once, and those cards can completely decide your fate.

With an event as important as the flop, no wonder almost everyone is eager to see it. But you shouldn’t be that eager. Here’s why…

* Golden opportunity *
Those three flop cards will still be there when you’re ready to look at them. But if you look at them as they’re turned up – which is what almost all of your opponents will be doing – you’re missing one of the golden opportunities for tells in poker.

My advice. Don’t watch the flop. Watch your opponents watch the flop. The key is that they don’t expect you to be watching them, so most of their reactions will be genuine, not acted. Remember, there are two main types of poker tells, those from actors and those that are involuntary.

It’s mostly the involuntary variety that we’re looking for when we watch our opponents watch the flop. The main tip is to watch as opponents briefly recognize that the flop helped them. They’ll often quickly glance at their chips in mental preparation to bet. This is instinctive.

However, when the flop doesn’t help them, your opponents are very likely to stare at it longer, usually at least a second or two longer. This, too, is instinctive. If it lasts more than two seconds, it crosses from being just instinctive hopefulness, as they try to find something that fits their hand, and becomes an act. At that point, they’re continuing to stare at the flop to try to convince you that it’s interesting to them.

* A tell *
In either case, whether they continue to stare hoping they’ll see something or they continue to stare as an act to make you think they’re interested in the flop, this is a tell. The long stare usually means that they didn’t make even a pair. Sure, once in a while, it means they flopped a straight and are trying to put the pieces together mentally – so beware of that rare happening. But, even then, they’ll often have to look back at the two cards in their hand to make sure the pieces of the straight fit, so if they don’t do that, the long stare probably means they missed.

To make it simple: Beware of a quick glance at the flop, then another quick glance at their chips. Often, this is followed by the player who just connected on the flop looking away as if uninterested – in an attempt to fool you. If they look long, don’t worry – your opponent probably missed everything. Again: quick glance, beware; long look, don’t worry.

Now, I’ve just told you that players don’t usually act to deceive you when they first look at the flop. That’s because they don’t think you’re watching them. They think you’re watching the flop, too, so immediate actions meant to deceive you aren’t necessary. But they do think you’ll hear them, so sometimes you can get vocal tells from actors. Listen for sighs or other utterances of sadness. These are meant to confuse you, but they really mean the opponent likes the flop and will probably bet or raise. Sad sounds are always dangerous.

* Keep it secret *
One additional tip. Don’t stare conspicuously at your opponents. Sooner or later, they’ll look up and realize you’re studying them on the flop. Keep your surveillance secret. I often point my head down and look up with my eyes, partially shielded by my fingers. This way, I seem to be looking toward the flop while I’m watching my opponents without them knowing.

Once again. Don’t watch the flop. Watch your opponents watch the flop. If they quickly glance away from the flop, briefly to their chips, then stare away from the approaching action, beware. That flop connected. If they continue to stare at the flop a little longer, you’re usually safe.

This is “The Mad Genius of Poker” Mike Caro and that’s my secret today. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 4033)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"In the beginning, everything was even money" -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Poker doesn't require cards (From my Poker1 site.)
PLAYING POKER IN A COW PASTURE | Mike Caro
If you look in almost any dictionary, poker will be defined as a card game. Now, I’m not President of the United States (although I should be, because I can choke on pretzels as well as anyone), but if I were, I’d be playing poker all the time – without cards.

There would be something to be won, competing forces, bets to be made, opportunities to raise opposing bets, times to fold and save resources, and chances to bluff. The pot would eventually go to just one winner. It would be poker.

Of course, not all important skirmishes in life are like poker. Some involve more than one winner and some have no winners at all. And no losers. Often those other encounters have interesting correlations to general gambling strategy, but not to poker.

* Three elements of poker *
Poker is a game pretty much all by itself. I scoff when dictionaries define poker as a game of cards, because cards aren’t what makes poker poker. In fact, there are actually just three things that make poker poker, and if those three things are present, you’re playing it.

Here are the three conditions that must be present for you to play poker:

1. There must be something of value to fight over before the betting begins. Without this, there’s no theoretical reason to wager unless you can’t be beat. We drive this point home when I teach classes for beginners at Mike Caro University of Poker. Most of these students have never played poker before. We deal them each a single card and have them bet on its rank. Usually, at a table full of players, bets and calls will be made with aces, kings, queens, jacks, and even lower. Then we explain that only an ace should have bet or called. We make the point that if you bet or call with anything else, any opponent can completely defeat you, without any risk whatsoever, by simply sticking to aces. It costs nothing to wait. But when there’s something worth fighting over to begin with, it’s different. In poker, the “something” that’s worth fighting over is usually the ante or blind bets, which are required before the action starts. This means everyone has something of value to pursue and it’s suddenly worth taking risk.

2. The exact value of your holding is secret — known to you, but not to your opponents.

3. If the last bet isn’t voluntarily matched by anyone, then the player who bet wins all the money automatically. It doesn’t matter how strong or how weak that player’s holding is. Otherwise, if the last bet is matched, a single winner will be determined by comparing strength.

These three elements are unique to poker. And, as far as I’m concerned, wherever these elements exist, you’re playing poker. Those who like to quibble may argue that there are a few other games that contain these elements, or – by stretching our minds – can be deemed to contain them. Fine, then I say those games are poker. And quibblers may also argue that there isn’t always a single winner in poker – there are games where high hands and low hands split the pot. But the aim there is to win all of the pot. Or you can think of high-low poker games as having two discrete pots. I don’t care how you decide to think about it, my concepts hold.

OK, what was missing from my definition of poker? Cards, right? Cards aren’t necessary to play poker. At MCU, we use this example to introduce the defining concepts of poker…

* Visiting the pasture *
You go to the ranch for the weekend. Who doesn’t? It’s just you and seven friends. Eveyone’s bored, because the cows have all gone into town on a holiday.

Someone says, “I’ll bet I can find the biggest cow chip.” A “cow chip” is a big, flat biscuit of cow dung, in case you’re a city slicker. Obviously, everyone thinks this is a great idea. It’s decided that each friend will bet $1 – and the combined money will be put into a pot in the middle of the ranch house dining table. One lucky person will win all the money in the pot. Brown paper bags are passed out to each competitor for the purpose of concealing whatever cow chip is found.

Now everyone heads out to the pasture, scurries about in search of the biggest cow chip, and returns to the table 10 minutes later, as mandated. Next they evaluate their prospects, weighing them against the $8 that’s being fought over on the table. They make additional wagers. Someone wins. But, wait! If Elizabeth didn’t find any cow chip and bets, she might win, despite her empty brown paper bag, because of her courage. That will happen if nobody matches her wager.

But if one or more opponents have matched the final bet, then you’ll need to open all the competing bags and compare cow chips. Then the biggest one will win at the showdown. And that’s all there is to poker. It’s not necessarily a card game.

Now you’re thinking, what about video poker? There’s no element of secrecy. There’s no last bet to be matched. Under the Mike Caro definition, some daily real-life endeavors would be poker, but the widely played and popular game of video poker wouldn’t have any significant elements in common with poker at all. Good thinking. Now we understand each other. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 5379)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"I never understood some old sayings. For instance: Why NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater?" -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

An immediate edge isn't needed to gain an advantage (From my Poker1 site.)
MAKING MONEY GAMBLING BY TAKING THE WORST OF IT | Mike Caro
In 1979, I sat outside a sports book with the great twice-world-champion of poker, Doyle “Texas Dolly” Brunson. Along comes a rugged-looking young guy in a stylish leather jacket. Then comes his wife or girlfriend. They talk, oblivious to our presence.

The guy is another wannabe professional gambler — every movement macho, legs spread too wide, like some cowboy from Wyoming. Fine. Then he asks his girlfriend — a cute little mini-skirted thing you’d like to take home for the night in an age without thought police when it was still acceptable to think that — “What are the odds against blackjack on the first hand using a single deck?”

She stammers, “You just told me, let me think. Is it two to one?” Well, maybe we should forget about taking her home. Besides I’m not a woman ogler (even though I ogled one once and I regret it) and I only said the part about “cute little mini-skirted thing” because I envision political correctness advocates cringing. It gets me excited when that happens. It’s a poker thing.

* Wrong answer *
Where was I? So, macho man gets upset because the wife, girlfriend, or whatever blew the answer. “No! Do you think you’re going to get blackjack thirty-three point three, three percent of the time?”

Now, after years analyzing gambling and poker, finding strategies, and compiling statistics, I can advise you that whenever you hear someone say “thirty-three point three, three percent,” instead of “one third,” stop listening.

Anyway, she giggles nervously and says, “No, maybe eighty percent. It’s pretty hard to get blackjack.” (Just so you know, it’s about 19.7 to 1 against getting blackjack on the first hand, using a single deck.)

“Learn the odds, Sandra,” he scolds. “I’m about to go in there and bet $200 on the Jets. You know why?”

“You think they’re going to win,” she surmises.

“No, because I have the best of it,” he corrects. I like her reason better.

* Why gamblers win *
Doyle casts a quizzical gaze, as if to ask, “Isn’t this guy too goofy to be a gambler?”

The young man continues. “You know what makes a professional gambler win?”

Sandra shakes her head no.

“He’s never willing to take the worst of it. Never,” he asserts. Then they went arm in arm into the sports book.

That’s when I turn to Doyle. “You ever take the worst of it?”

“All the time,” he says. “That’s why I win.”

“Me, too,” I agree.

* Taking the worst of it to the bank *
Sure, you can win by only doing what’s safe. But you can win lots more if you’re willing to take the worst of it.

Why take the worst of it? The answer is: To find out if you have the best of it. I’ve made money at miniature golf, for example. When I was in my twenties, I was good, but others were better. I’d often be challenged by excellent players I didn’t know. Usually, I lost.

Overall, I’d guess that I lost to about 20 challengers and beat five. Yet, I made money, and that experience guided my gambling from then on. Typically, I’d lose, say, $20 right away. I might quit — or I might still think I could be the superior player, so I’d agree to golf again. It wasn’t expensive to discover whether I had an edge. If I decided I didn’t, I’d politely quit. If I decided I did, I’d keep playing. I learned that most amateur gamblers won’t quit until it hurts, but I was willing to quit before it hurt.

* Betting big with an edge *
I was raising the stakes and continuing to play only when I had an advantage. Otherwise, I was suffering just small losses.

Since then I’ve done the same thing with people who have challenged me to unusual forms of poker. Usually they know what they’re doing and have the best of it, since I’m unfamiliar with their game. But, OK, let’s find out. I’ve done it shooting basketball. I’m bad, but I’ve made money. Today, you’re probably going to beat me out of $100 or even $500. Merry Christmas. If you miscalculate, I’m hoping you’re one of those people who won’t quit, who will keep desperately trying to get even, who will risk it all.

You see, I don’t mind quitting as a loser. I like it. It feels good to quit when I have the worst of it and it feels good to continue when I have the best of it. What costs money is not knowing.

As Doyle said outside the sports book many years ago, “In Texas, a lot of money is pumped from oil wells. But to get that money, you’ve got to drill. And most times you drill, you’re gonna come up dry. But it’s worth it.” — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 8568)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"Bad beat stories are sad, not factual." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Things for poker players to consider (From my Poker1 site.)
DID YOU KNOW THIS ABOUT POKER? | Mike Caro
December 13 is DYK Day. That stands for Did You Know Day, so named in an almost forgotten resolution that passed both houses of Congress in 1940. The idea was that Americans could learn a great deal about many things if their fellow citizens shared their knowledge.

Ideally, everybody who was knowledgeable in some field or who had a hobby would pledge to walk up to complete strangers at least twice on this day and offer some fact of interest. Each fact would begin with the words, “Did you know.”

* Rude *
The use of those exact words was very important, because — as you know — it is otherwise rude to suddenly get in the face of a stranger and start talking seriously about an important fact. “Did you know” was intended to put the person thusly assaulted at ease. The assaulted person would know that the intrusion was sanctioned by Congress.

Well, the concept lost favor after the first year and hasn’t really been popular since. Criminals used the opportunity to put their victims at ease by pretending to be offering a tidbit of knowledge.

Beggars tended to irritate everyone everywhere with their, “Did you know I haven’t had a good meal in two days?” and “Did you know I could use a dime for a cup of coffee?”

* Crime *
Crime soared on the first DYK day. In Cleveland, five armed men crashed through a bank door and their leader shouted, “Did you know we’re going to blow your brains out if you don’t give us all your money?”

While this might have been an unusual incident, the fact that it was seen in headlines nationwide tended to make the whole DYK Day concept less popular. It was not revived the next year, although it remains on the books as an unofficial holiday.

So, let’s play DYK.

* Playing DYK *
Did you know that you can lose a pot by betting? When you journey beyond the basics of poker, you start to think about strategy more intricately. You realize that by not betting hands in key situations, you cannot only cost yourself extra money, you can sometimes cost yourself the whole pot.

Sometimes, on an early betting round, you check and the player behind you checks. On the very next card, that player connects for an inside straight. It’s a tragedy for you, but one that you would have avoided had you bet.

That opponent likely would not have called a bet in an attempt to make an inside straight. He wouldn’t have been around to receive the card that brought you misery. So, in that case, betting would have saved the pot.

The most obvious event in which betting wins an entire pot is a bluff. That’s what a bluff is all about, right? You’re probably going to lose in a showdown, so you bet and hope that your opponent doesn’t call. If that happens, you win. Again, an entire pot has been won by betting.

* There you sit *
What if you have a medium-strength hand and you figure that your opponent does, also? So, there you sit on the last betting round, holding a hand that seemingly is not quite strong enough to bet or maybe even to call with if you check and your opponent bets.

You might win in a showdown, but you might not. Now what?

Now, you should often consider betting. Notice that I said consider betting. It isn’t automatic that you should bet, and — in fact — you probably don’t want to bet most of the time. But sometimes, you should make a daring bet in this situation.

* Why bet? *
Why should you bet? You should bet because, although you don’t have an advantage in strength — which is the most common reason to wager — you have your opponent trapped in a situation in which he may not call.

It takes the right kind of opponent to justify this bet, and it takes the right kind of action leading up to the bet. Often, the bet is a good idea if your opponent is in an analytical mode, off tilt, and has reason to suspect that your hand may be strong.

If he perceives the situation the same way that you do — that you’re both holding about the same strength hand, the bet will be futile because he will just call and hope to win. The pot will overwhelm the size of your bet and, therefore, he will be gaining much more if he calls and wins than the cost of a losing call. In limit poker, the pot odds dictate that you usually should call with any reasonable hope of winning.

* Excellent chance *
Fine. But if this opponent has reason to believe that you probably have the best hand, he may fold a hand that would have won in the showdown. That sometimes makes your bet worthwhile.

It can be much better to risk, say, a $20 bet into a $100 pot if it means that your opponent sometimes will fold than to just see the showdown and hope. Even when your opponent calls, you still have an excellent chance of winning.

Your chance of winning in this bet-call showdown isn’t quite as good as it would be in a check-check showdown, however. That’s because, presumably, your opponent will tend to fold the hands at the lower end of the spectrum of possibilities and call with the hands at the higher end.

* Sacrifice *
Let’s say that by betting and being called, you win only 40 percent of your showdowns, but by checking, you win 50 percent. That sacrifice still might be worthwhile if your bet occasionally causes your opponent to throw away the superior hand.

Another thing that’s good about betting is that you sometimes can make extra money. If you do have the best hand and your opponent does call, that’s an extra bet that you would not have earned had you checked.

It gets more complicated.

* Best choice *
The analysis gets even more involved than this, and there are other powerful reasons why betting is sometimes the best choice on the final round when you think that you have about a fifty-fifty chance of holding the better hand. You should even consider betting hands that have less than a fifty-fifty chance of winning in a showdown — and I’m not talking about bluffing. The fact is, you don’t know if you’re bluffing, so you’re betting for a different reason — or a combination of reasons.

There is another risk of not betting. If you check, your opponent might bet and you might not call.

This should not usually happen, because if you have a borderline betting hand, you should almost always be willing to call in limit poker. The size of the pot so dictates.

* Disaster *
But, in actual games, many players check the weaker portion of their medium-range hands and then fail to call. That could be a disaster, and another reason — if you’re so inclined to make the mistake — to simply bet rather than check.

In spite of all of this, I believe that many experienced players bet too often in some key situations. There are many advantages to checking, but that’s beyond the scope of what I want to discuss today.

Returning to the DYK question. I think you’re convinced by now that betting in some marginal situations can be profitable. OK. But that wasn’t the key question for DYK Day. Remember that the question was: “Did you know that you can lose a pot by betting?”

How? I’ll tell you how. When you make the kind of daring bets that I’ve just described, you’d better make sure that you’re against a predictable player. That sort of aggressive betting with fifty-fifty or worse hands only tends to work in the long run against players who are not especially deceptive.

* Unexpected raise *
If you bet a somewhat worse-than-average hand into a deceptive opponent, you may be met with an unexpected raise — one that you might not call. Again and again, this aggressive bet backfires against deceptive foes. If you check and they check, you might win the showdown.

In fact, let’s say that you have substantially worse than an average hand for the situation. You check. Your opponent holds a truly miserable hand and decides not to bet. You win the showdown.

But what if he’s a deceptive opponent. You think that both of you are weak. You bet that same substantially worse than average hand, hoping to drive out a hand that might be better than yours.

* Collide *
The deceptive player raises. You fold. You’ve lost the entire pot by betting, and this happens quite regularly when certain types of opponents collide. It’s in the chemistry.

To take this concept further, there’s a danger in bluffing when both you and your opponent are very weak. You won’t be able to justify a call if raised, and you might win the showdown if you check and your opponent doesn’t bet. But, you’re saying, if the opponent is apt to raise, isn’t he also likely to bluff if I check to him? Probably, but not always.

The more deceptive this opponent is, the more likely he is to raise with nothing when you wager your weak hand, but that doesn’t mean that he will bluff just as often. There are some situations in which knowledgeable deceptive opponents fear that you’ll call in an obvious bluffing situation — after they’ve been checked to.

* Secure the pot *
Still, if you bet, they think that you might be bluffing or weak. They figure that their raise might secure the pot, and they’ll try it. This happens more often than you might suspect in the bigger-limit games against sophisticated opponents.

I’m not saying that in general, you will lose more pots by betting than by checking. I’m just saying that it’s something you need to consider. Betting can win you an entire pot sometimes — and sometimes it can lose you an entire pot. Think about it.

Additional information about DYK Day. Did you know that, historically speaking, DYK Day is not real? I made it up — but I like the concept. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 1564)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"Without poker patience, you win more pots and lose more money." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Managing your poker funding (From my Poker1 site.)
SAFER REQUIREMENTS FOR POKER BANKROLLS | Mike Caro
Today, I’m going to do something I swore never to do. I’m going to answer one of poker’s most perplexing questions: How big should my bankroll be to play which limits? The answer will be based on a powerful concept that we’ve discussed before; but it will employ a formula that I’ve never shared before.

* Popular demand *
In supplying this answer today, I’m surrendering to popular demand. You’ve heard me say over and over that nobody should be criticized for playing any game anytime with an “inadequate bankroll.” That’s because there’s really no such thing as an inadequate bankroll. In the past, I’ve made the following points about bankrolls, and they all remain true today beyond question:

1. It is up to you to determine how much security you require and how much risk you’ll tolerate.

2.The more you risk, the more likely you are to achieve sudden success, and the more likely you are to go broke in the attempt.

3. Anyone who claims that you must follow precise, mathematically formulated guidelines to protect your bankroll, probably doesn’t have a clue about how other real-world factors outside of poker, plus your own tolerance for risk, affect this decision. (Despite this, today I’m unveiling bankroll requirements based on my own sophisticated formula that will work wonders for most players.)

4. Mathematical formulae designed to protect your bankroll are not especially useful. Notably, the Kelly Criterion – which can be used to calculate the percentage of bankroll you should risk in accordance with your advantage – is not easily adapted to poker. That’s because it’s difficult to determine what your advantage is for a given poker session in the same way that can determine your advantage for a single wager.
5. Common mathematical methods don’t consider the reality that small bankrolls are easily replaced and are not worth protecting in the same way that large bankrolls are. (That’s the powerful concept that we’ve discussed before, referred to in the first paragraph.)

6.Don’t spend your bankroll. You need to keep it, and if you didn’t know before today, you will know why after you study the chart that follows. Because you need a specific amount to play a given limit, you not only can be demoted by losing money from your bankroll, you also can be demoted by spending it.

7. The minimum mathematically proper bankroll to play at a given limit is one buy-in. (However, as our bankrolls grow, we should be less and less reckless.)

8. Not everyone needs a bankroll. I recommend that most serious players, especially professionals, keep an expanding bankroll to be used for poker and for nothing else. But some players – those who have comfortable assets or who play only occasionally – have no real reason to maintain a bankroll. They can simply choose to play when they want, using whatever money they want. Still, it might be helpful for them to estimate what portion of their assets they can afford to risk at poker and imagine they have that bankroll. Then, they can choose their appropriate limit in accordance with Caro’s Recommended Bankroll Requirements for Poker Players, presented later today.

* Caro’s Recommended Bankroll Requirements *
Now, the part we’ve all been waiting for. Today I break my long silence on bankroll requirements. In doing so, I would appreciate it if you kept in mind my general philosophy. You should not criticize anyone for any risk they willing take, ever. That’s their personal decision, based on how suddenly they seek to succeed and how much they can tolerate the pain of losing. Having said that, here are the best guidelines I can provide for the broadest number of poker players. I’ll explain the chart in a minute.

* Recommended for typical winning poker players *

Bankroll size | Highest limit to play | Number of buy-ins needed
$10 to $299$1/$21
$300 to $528$2/$415
$529 to $1,081$3/$617.64
$1,082 to $2,854$5/$1021.64
$2,855 to $5,036$10/$2028.55
$5,037 to $7,535$15/$3033.58
$7,536 to $13,293$20/$4037.68
$13,294 to $19,886$30/$6044.31
$19,887 to $27,178$40/$8049.72
$27,179 to $47,946$50/$10054.36
$47,947 to $71,725$75/$15063.93
$71,726 to $126,533$100/$20071.73
$126,534 to $189,286$150/$30084.36
$189,287 to $333,924$200/$40094.64
$333,925 to $499,531$300/$600111.31
$499,532 to $682,711$400/$800124.88
$682,712 to $881,233$500/$1000136.54
$881,234 to $1,318,272$600/$1200146.87
$1,318,273 to $1,801,686$800/$1600164.78
$1,801,687 to ?$1000/$2000180.17

Factors used in calculation: Buy-ins for second level = 15; Fluid Acceleration Factor (FAF) = 0.4. Diminishing Acceleration Factor (DAF) = 0.0 (not used).

* Chart explained *
I am making public many similar charts based on the concepts I teach, and I’ve included some in my recently published Guide to Doyle Brunson’s Super/System. The most important concept is that the larger your bankroll grows, the more you should seek to protect it. Here’s how to read the chart above.

1. Determine what the size of your available bankroll. This does not need to be cash actually in your pocket, but constitutes money that is readily available to you for the purpose of playing poker.

2. Find the row where your bankroll fits in the left-hand column.

3. Follow across to the middle column and find the maximum limit poker game you are allowed to play. Never play higher than this limit. If you have backers taking a percentage of your action, adjust the game accordingly. If someone else is covering 50 percent of your action in a $400/$800 game, then you’re effectively playing half as large, so make sure you have the bankroll required for $200/$400. The first number means the fixed bet on early betting rounds, the second sum is for later betting rounds. If you play in games where the limits stay the same throughout all betting rounds, for simplicity use the lower number to indicate the limit of game (although these games won’t be quite as large, on average). You may (and often should) play games lower than this maximum limit allowed.

4. The right-hand column shows the number of “buy-ins” which are needed to play that level. A buy-in means 10 times the minimum bet.

My bankroll charts all use the following methodology.

1. Level one is always playable, assuming you have one legal buy-in.

2. Level two requires an arbitrary number of buy-ins. Here, level two is $2/$4, and the number of buy-ins I’ve selected as appropriate for most people is 15. This is not a “safe” number of buy-ins, but is adequate to have a decent chance of getting most potential winning players jump started. If you fail, you will probably be able to come up with another starting bankroll in the real world outside of poker.

3. (This part is technical and the non-mathematical should ignore this paragraph in protecting their own sanity.) The requirements for subsequent levels are calculated by dividing the minimum bet for that level by the minimum bet for level two, taking that result to the power of the Fluid Acceleration Factor (FAF = 0.4 in the previous chart) plus 1 (1.4) and multiplying by the minimum bankroll for the second level.

4. A Diminishing Acceleration Factor (DAF) is sometimes used in my charts to temper the exponential amount of increase in number of buy-ins required at larger limits. DAF was not used in the previous chart (or, more correctly, was computed at 0.0, effectively turning it off). By turning DAF off, I am allowing the requirements for the larger limits to become greater than many players would expect. I have done this deliberately, because I believe there are many unexpected obstacles awaiting players at these larger limits, and I wanted to pad the protection in this chart.
If you’re playing no-limit or pot-limit games, you’ll need to try to pick a level on the chart that the game would most nearly equal in size and risk. Also, the chart doesn’t factor in your skill, the skill of others, the ante size, the form of poker, or other factors that might be used to adjust the recommended betting limits. It assumes that you are a winning player who – if you play your best game all the time – will have typical advantages and win typical amounts. If you’re better than that description, you can move up levels with slightly smaller bankrolls; if you’re not quite that good yet, you will need a larger bankroll to advance. Still, I think the chart is a good one for most players, and I think you should use it just the way it is.

* Bigger might be harder *
Many players think that as their bankrolls grows, they have a relatively equal chance of reaching the next level. This might not be true. You can run into larger games that are much tougher to beat. If this happens, you should play smaller limits than the maximum that the chart allows. Remember, the maximum limit listed is just that, a maximum limit. If you are allowed to play $100/$200, but the $40/$80 game provides the best profit at the lowest risk, then that’s the one you should be playing.

Notice that the number of buy-ins required grows disproportionately as the limits rise. This is in keeping with my concept that when your bankroll is small, there is less reason to spend time and effort defending it. You can simply gamble more recklessly and hope to get off to a good start. But the more your bankroll grows, the harder it is to replace. That’s why the FAF is used in my formula. It makes sure that the bigger your bankroll becomes, the more secure it is.

So, there it is – finally, a reasonable answer to your question about how much of a bankroll you need. If you stick to my Recommended Bankroll Requirements and don’t con yourself into jumping up to levels without an adequate bankroll, you can probably use that single chart throughout your entire poker-playing career, although you may want to adjust for inflation. Hope this helps. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 4147)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"I’m sane as a soda cracker and I intend to stay that way ’til the day of the drizzle." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Poker advisory (From my Poker1 site.)
A WARNING TO MY FRIENDS IN POKER | Mike Caro
I can beat most upper-middle-stakes games in my sleep. Oh, gosh! You’re going to think I’m bragging. Darn it, I already typed the words, and now it’s too late.

I’m not saying I could beat these games in my sleep simply because I’m a brilliant player (although I thought about saying it). All serious poker players can beat these games in their sleep! You. Your friends. Your dog. Anyone. You won’t always win, but you’ll have so much of an edge that you can play on automatic pilot (which is what I mean by “in your sleep”) and eventually win.

* Tough times for pros? *
Which stakes am I talking about? Limit stakes from $20/$40 up to at least $100/$200 and all no-limit games. Which forms of poker? All of them! Why are these games suddenly so easy? Well, they’re not suddenly so easy. They’ve been getting easier and easier every year. I first wrote about this in 1993. And the strange thing is, the trend continues! Are pros finding these games easier to beat? No! Many pros are finding them harder to beat.

* The warning *
Tell me when you’re confused. Good. Now let’s talk about a very serious matter affecting you and your bankroll. In 1993, at my poker seminar at the Bicycle Club Casino near Los Angeles, I projected this warning on the screen:

WARNING!
Most serious players are becoming too creative
They’ll go broke unless they return to basics.

And I’ve been stressing that fact worldwide for more than two decades since.

This next part is just between us. There’s been much serious material on poker strategy written in those decades. It hasn’t just come from me, and a lot of it is powerful and credible. Unfortunately, it often dwells on very unusual or alternative strategy — utility bets, semi-bluffs, value bets. All these options, sadly, have now addicted most otherwise skilled players in upper-middle-limit games. They don’t seem to realize how far they’ve strayed from the basics. Instead of using these tricky high-powered weapons judiciously, appropriately, and profitably, they are currently using them routinely, inappropriately.

* Why? *
Their reasons are complex. They want to impress opponents. They seek to amuse themselves. They feel a psychological need to find ways to prove their “superiority” to themselves. Who really knows?

But that’s why it’s possible for any astute player to sit in the midst of this Harlem-Globetrotter style of poker and, by playing a brilliantly basic game, defeat not only their average opponents, but also their strong ones! What I’m saying is that — and I’m saying this straight at you — if you continue with this compulsion to be creative without knowing the reason, your bankroll might die. That’s my message. That’s my warning. That’s all! — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 32248)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"When I bluff, I mean it." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Live peacefully with this player (From my Poker1 site.)
DON'T AGGRAVATE A POKER OPPONENT TO YOUR LEFT | Mike Caro
The player seated to your left usually has a permanent positional advantage over you, because he or she will usually act after you do. I say usually, because if you’re playing a game with blind bets and are in the dealer position (a.k.a. “on the button”), that player will act first on betting rounds other than the first.

* No luxury *
Because the player on your left usually gets to act after you, you don’t enjoy the luxury of waiting to declare war until after he acts, when you could either raise a bet or bet into him following a check, trying to make his life miserable.

Also, if he checks, you could see the next card free by checking also, if you desire. All these last-to-act advantages are significant. And the player to your left is the one who enjoys them, not you.

* What to do *
So, here’s what you must do. Treat the player to your left gently and politely. If you give that player a reason to maximize his positional advantage over you, he probably will. If you give him no reason to make it tough on you, your life will be easier and more profitable.

Remember, you must be very significantly better than an opponent to your left to play fancy or aggressively against him. If your relative skills are anywhere near even, it’s better to keep the peace. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 2210)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"Anyone who cheats at poker should be boiled and eaten." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Changing poker speeds the right way (From my Poker1 site.
BAD POKER: SHIFTING GEARS WRONG | Mike Caro
Most people drive cars with automatic transmissions today. When the poker term “shifting gears” became popular, the average driver operated a manual stick shift with three forward gears — first, second, and third. First gear was the slowest and third gear was the fastest.

You shouldn’t play at the same speed all the time. Sometimes the circumstances surrounding the game dictate that you should modify your usual style of play. And sometimes you shift gears just to bewilder your opponents. But if you don’t shift gears correctly, you shouldn’t shift at all. And, unfortunately, most players shift gears incorrectly — and often for no clear reason at all.

In my mind is an echo of faint praise I’ve heard at the table. “Joe is always changing his strategy.” “You never know what Bob is going to do next.” But, in truth, Joe and Bob may be losing players. They’ve learned to mix up their play and they probably enjoy it when opponents can’t predict what they’re going to do next.

Sadly, unpredictability by itself isn’t enough to win at poker. And shifting gears can often cost you money. Let’s focus on one central truth: When you’re winning you have built-in intimidation. Players won’t counterattack as readily. They tend to be terrified by you and call more often because something deep in their psyche doesn’t want to be bluffed. But at the same time that they call more often, they abandon many profitable bets and raises against you. They’ve seen you win and they’ve been beaten up a little, so they don’t want to tempt fate or play with fire.

* Value bet *
When this happens, you can value bet at every opportunity. To value bet means to press hands with small advantages for every penny’s worth of profit. You can do that when you’re conspicuously winning, because you have psychological control of the game. You shift into third gear and stay there, betting and raising aggressively, because most opponents won’t get maximum value from their hands when they have you beat. That means your value bets are profitable.

But when your luck is bad and you’re losing, you need to shift into first gear and play slow. It’s okay to be a wimp when you’re losing. Have patience until the cards eventually bring you back into the spotlight.

Now, here’s the deal. If you’re in third gear and dominating the game, it doesn’t pay off to shift down one or two gears just to change your style. That may confuse opponents, but it also works to their advantage by lessening the pressure. So, as long as you maintain your psychological advantage and keep winning, stay in third gear.

* Shift *
Shift into first gear when you’re losing and opponents are inspired. That���s when they view you as vulnerable and push their advantages. When that happens, your value betting works against you. Stay in first gear. The second, middle gear, should be reserved for times when you’re neither in control of the game or being targeted.

Some players will tell you that you should play aggressively when the cards are running hot, because you’re on a streak that’s apt to continue. And, they say, you should play cautiously when the cards are running cold, because that bad streak isn’t over. They’re half right. That’s how you should play, but not for that reason. In poker, the next deal is independent of past events and just as likely to bring good cards as bad cards, no matter what’s happened in the past. The real reason you use first gear when you’re losing and third gear when you’re winning is because of the way opponents perceive you and respond to your actions.

When you’re winning, use third gear and don’t shift. When you’re losing, use first gear and don’t shift. — MC
(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 5907)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"Before I go to hell in a handbasket, I’d at least like to know what that means." -- Mike Caro

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

Odds against overcalls (From my Poker1 site.
TODAY'S POKER WORD IS OVERCALL | Mike Caro
While I occasionally talk about overcalling, nothing drives home my teachings about the fundamental peril of that tactic better than an audio lecture I did years ago. It’s one of the lessons you need to master to reach the higher tiers of poker profit.

Oh, I almost forgot to remind you. Soon I’ll be making my lectures available at three web sites: https://t.co/2oTPvUohTT, https://t.co/zNmBpGuiwL, and https://t.co/FNMVLJGiqO. I hope you’ll get the chance to visit me there.

Anyway, you need a much stronger hand to overcall than to call. And if you don’t believe it, listen…

* An important truth about overcalling *
In poker, you can call a bet. And if someone else has already called that bet, you can overcall. It turns out that even many professional players lose money on this important aspect of the game – the aspect of overcalling. I’m talking specifically about overcalling on the last round of betting, when the final strength of your hand is already decided and there are no more cards to come.

Today, I’m going to tell you the secret to gaining a profitable perspective about overcalling. In just a few minutes, you’ll understand that a common mistake costs thousands of serious poker players collectively millions of dollars every year. And you’ll know how to avoid that mistake.

The concept we’re about to unravel applies to all forms of poker and to limit, pot-limit, and even no-limit games. Suppose you have a medium-strong hand on the final betting round. An opponent bets. Fine. Now you must figure out whether the amount of money currently in the pot justifies your call. Remember, you should make this decision not on the basis of whether you think you’re going to win, you will make it on whether there is enough money to justify your call. In other words, the decision is not whether you’ll probably win, but whether if you had a chance to make this call over and over again in this same situation, you’d win often enough to come out money ahead.

* Serious players make serious mistakes *
But, wait, that’s what you need to consider to make a call against one bettor, one on one. If the pot is five times the size of the call, then you only need to win one in six times to break even, because over five times, you’ll lose five bets, but one time you’ll win five bets. But what if you’re faced with an overcall? Here’s where many serious players make serious mistakes. They figure, hey, the pot just got bigger and I have just as good a chance of winning as the first caller. So, I should be just as willing to overcall as if he didn’t call – even more so, because the pot is a little bigger. His money is in it.

There are problems with the logic. First of all, from a game theory standpoint, the first player needs to be more cautious about making a call when you’re waiting to act behind him. So, if he’s a rational player, his call indicates his hand should average more strength than if you weren’t waiting behind him. But that’s another issue for another day. That isn’t the main focus of what I want you to learn now.

I want you to accept the fact that you have just as good a chance to win this pot as your opponent. If your opponent had folded, you would have called because you had about a one in six chance of winning, which was just about right in view of the pot odds. But now your opponent calls. Now the pot is laying even more money and you theoretically only need to win one time in seven, instead of one time in six, to break even. OK, but wait a darn minute!

You were going to beat the bettor one time in six, right? Well, that part hasn’t changed. You’re still going to beat him one time in six if you make this same call over and over through eternity. But now you’re not just calling him, you’re calling another player, too, even though you figure you have just as good a chance of beating the bettor as that opponent does.

* Half the time, you lose *
But think about it. If you call and beat the bettor, then only half the time will you beat the first caller, because you’ve estimated that your chances and his chances are equal. What does that mean? Well, mathematically, it means that instead of winning one in six times, you’re now going to win just one in 12 times, because half the times that you would have won, you’ll lose to that first caller.

Wow! That’s a big difference. The pot would have been laying you five to one without the first caller and now it’s laying you six to one. If you’re thinking, “If he can call, I can call,” that’s bad logic. The strange truth is, he can call, but you can’t, even if you have a slightly better chance to win than he does, and even if your call would have been profitable against the original bettor.

When you see this truth, you’ll realize that you need a much stronger hand to overcall than to call a single opponent. You will make a lot more money for your poker lifetime if you remember this and always fold hands, rather than overcall, when you would have had a small advantage calling just the original bettor. On the final betting round, overcalls require much stronger hands than calls.

This is “The Mad Genius of Poker” Mike Caro and that’s my secret today. – MC(c) 2026 Mike Caro | (Article ID: 3048)

[Mike Caro @MikeCaro]

"Deceiving opponents at poker isn't just fun. It's your job." -- Mike Caro