I think I made a mistake here, which shows how useful logarithms are. On my own penny scale the movement are:
$1000 starting investment = 16.60
$20,000 stage = 20.93
$100,000 goal = 23.25

So you made 20.93-16.6 = 4.33 out of a goal of 23.25 - 16.6 = 6.65.

4.33 / 6.65 = about two thirds (0.65 to be exact), or less than the four fifths I'd assumed. You made 1/5th of the journey in terms of ABSOLUTE MONEY ($20,000 when you need $100,000) but logarithmically you did FAR better, as you're two thirds of the way there. You don't have to find as spectacular a stock to make it to $100,000 from $20,000 as you had to to make it from $20,000 from $1,000. As you can see the movement logarithmically is considerably less between 20.93 and 23.25 as it was between 16.6 and 20.93 - and this makes sense if you think about it properly.

While the exact number you're at on my scale depends on the logarithm you use, the ratios don't - so I don't know what Nate used to get to his 1/7th, but I repeated his calculation with my own base and got the same result. Likewise, if my calculation above are correct that the $20k investment from $1k is 2/3rds the way there to $100k on the logarithmic scale, then this is correct in any base.

It makes sense if you think about it. If you purchase a certain amount of stock in any company, you don't care how many dollars it moves up or down - only the percentage that it does.

I'm sorry but this just had me laughing for about 5 mins straight.

OP you have obviously done your homework and read a lot of books on strategy. Reducing variance CAN be done, like you said value folding is a very good option.

You are over the $2 mark, that's 100 buy ins for the 0.02c turbos, and as you mentioned you are crushing these since you learned a good push bot strategy.

Soon you will be +5 on your scale and at $200 (considering you went +3 in a week).

I wish you all the best, you are my hero. I will tell my kids about you some day, young 15 year old boy.. gg wp

Thanks for the kindness, but this is just a prop bet for fun - don't get carried away. Also, while I might be playing the equivalent of play money, I'm also not steaming off $10k whenever I'm running bad and playing bad, unlike some people I've heard of.

So, while the direct money might approach nil, there are very very very good reasons to do things this way. It should be an example and something to remember - and just look at my last graph: http://i.imgur.com/aSSmw.jpg

How long did that line hug 0? (That was with a €20 deposit where I did not start to run bad; this is with a €10 deposit where I did.)

Are we there yet?

1.00 : $0.02 bankroll (hypothetical)
3.00 : $0.08
4.85 : $0.29
7.14 : $1.42
7.31 : $1.59
7.64 : $2.00
8.41 : $3.42
8.68 : $4.12
8.97 : $5.03 <--- we are here
10.3 : $12.66/€10 started challenge
10.6 : $15.94 current streak's high before starting to run very bad
11.3 : $25.32/€20 (started last streak)
14.28: $200. (last after 1 wk - i.e. got +3 on this scale in 1 wk)
18.93: $5,000.
21.25: $25,000.
22.83: $75,000.
23.25: $100,000. My goal after 1 year.
25.57: $500,000.

But this is a year-long challenge - it's going to be a long ride, so quit asking. Why didn't you go at home when I asked?

OP I will send you $50 on Stars if you go through all my posts in the marketplace and make an excel spreadsheet with the results of all my investments. You will make 100x more than playing microstakes this way and you can stop grinding $0.02 hypers and you can also bet that $50 against me for a potential pay of $1,000.

I actually like the idea of logarithmic brm. What is your background op?

OP take this deal.
Should take you about an hour or so. Then start a thread to flip the 50 into many monies

FYP

lol he trupped up his bankroll. At bout 5 dolla. Me love u long time, OP.

It's a logarithmic scale. Sitting down with $10 at a low buy-in and standing up a few orbits later with $100 ten minutes later at a $0.05/$0.10 table is mechanically the same as sitting down with $100 at a $0.50/$1 table and standing up ten minutes later with $200. The game may be harder/tougher - but that could have been true of the lower table too.

Mechanically (by the rules of the game) your performance is similar in the two cases. So even though in the first you made "$10" and the second you made "$100" actually it's better to see each one as making 1 bi or 100 bb, which then becomes a percentage of your buy-in rather than an absolute dollar amount.

What the logarithmic scale does is make movements be the same percentage. You could think of it as the 10-based logarithm; roughly, the "number of digits."

Then it would be:
1: $0.01 bankroll
2: $0.10 bankroll
3: $1 bankroll
4: $10 bankroll
5: $100 bankroll
6: $1000 bankroll
7: $10,000 bankroll
and so on. Going from $100 to $1000 means going from, say, having 50 bi's at $1/$2 to having 500 bi's at $1/$2.

Likewise, any other movement of "1" can correspond to going from 50 bi's to 500 bi's at that stake. But you see how 50 to 500 bi's is a HUGE leap? Well, that's why I picked a lower base than ten to do this in! Make sense?

Sounds interesting.But am bad with math. Can you please elaborate this concept ?

Is this offer open to anyone?

How many times do you have to multiply by 2 to multiply by 100? The answer is "log2 100" - which is 6.64. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=log2+100

That's the definition of a logarithm. Moving from 1 to 100 is moving by 6.64 powers of two.