From what I have read in the past about BR management (was in relation to sports betting, but it can apply to any form of AP), what people tend to do is pay themselves a flat salary based on their cumulative EV for that period. What percentage of your EV you cash out is a matter of balance between growth and pay (dividends, to borrow investing terminology). Notice how this is different than taking money that is above your starting amount or your expected amount. Here's an example,

Ex. You play for 150 hours, and your net EV (cumulative expected win) is 1800. You decide that for every 150 hours you will pay yourself. You decide to pay yourself 800 each period.

If you want to focus on more growth, pay yourself less. If you're already content with your bankroll size you can take more. Perhaps you decide you're already happy with how much you're making, but you decide you still want to grow your bankroll. You can still pay yourself a decent amount and just leave the rest towards growth. Money you earn either goes to growth or consumption. This applies to regular jobs as well. With a set amount of income you might ask yourself 'Do I want to have a very comfortable family of 3? or a cozy but humble family of 6?'

I would also like to address what ZeeBabar did. I don't see anything wrong with what he did. The point of my post above was to illustrate the ramifications of basing your pay from the bank on experienced, rather than theoretical, results. I wasn't saying, don't do this. I was saying, if you decide to do this, know it's effects. If you aren't living on your bankroll (your sole or primary income will be from your bankroll) then it's probably fine to do this. Otherwise, what I mentioned in this post might be useful.