Quote:
Originally Posted by citamgine
Thats not necessarily true.Typically when increasing stakes variance will increase in absolute terms even if it remains the same or decreases in terms of bb/100. Otherwise our risk of going broke would always be less wherever we have the highest win rate.
As we increase our chance of having to drop back to the lower stake we also increase our chance of going broke.
Well, I see what you are saying. However, the way the OP worded each option changes things a bit. Both options have identical risk of going bust, since in both options the player goes back to 100nl at 5k.
Since winrate per BB does not change, then the 5k point is less likely to lead to ruin, even though it is closer to zero.
Further, whatever risk there is to go bust at 5k, without further clarification, we can only consider to be acceptable risk to the OP.
The question would be the same if OP waited to 26k to move up and moved back down at 25k. Waiting for 30k would just be inefficient, if 25k is a safe fallback position.
Also, our risk of going broke is always less when we have higher BB/100, so long as we move down at preset limits. But really OP is talking bankroll growth, which in poker is more of a discipline than a mathematical exercise. If you look at each bet placed individually, poker players are basically just pushing tiny portions of bankroll back and forth to each other, way below what other gamblers would wager on sports for instance.
Last edited by robert_utk; 03-02-2018 at 08:09 PM.