Let's say you get it in for 100% of your bankroll with a 10% edge. If there is really any variance this is too much, and if you keep doing this eventually you are going to go broke. If there is no variance you just make a massive amount of money.

In both cases you have the same expectation, but the latter is significantly more profitable, because you always have the utility of your bankroll being intact.

Busting your bankroll is more catastrophic than doubling it is good.

I think this is it. Poker bankrolls are not infinite. Either you model it so that players never “move down” and therefor go busto, or you model it to allow move down, but remember that there is no reason to expect a future “move up”. Either way, by busto or just moving down never to return, those dollars are permanently located in the bankrolls of surviving players.

More variance for equal expectation is a negative, no matter how you slice the apple.

It's just the kelly criterion. Correctly going full kelly will optimize bankroll growth. Running it twice will lower variance a little bit, so in theory kelly will have you moving up more aggressively. The extra money would come from if you have a higher hourly at higher stakes. That's it.

If you have the same bankroll requirements for moving up (such as a shot at 30 buyins) regardless of if you run it once or twice, then it won't have any impact on who would be more profitable in the longrun. The advantage is the player that runs it twice may be able to move up at say 29.5 buyins instead of 30.

This is a clearly flaw premiss.
There is no reason to expect a future move up ? Urr I dont think so !!
A guy with a +11 /bb over a LARGE sample size can fully expect to move up at the same level over a period of time.

All of the players have the same EV in every situation. The players that move down, do so because of variance. Once this happens, there is no expectation it will not happen again, or that other players will have moved up, while you are waiting to “move back”.

@robert_utl I really am starting to believe you are trolling. Your statements are 1/2 baked,
boardering on drivel.
IF a guy is ONLY running it Twice with a set vs a four flush he is clearly the favorite.
Variance will only EXAGGERATE his Favored status.
And WHO CARES What other players are doing "while you are waiting" .
Keep Trolling !!

Ah, well then I participate no further.

No. Just no.
Running it more than once means you'll win the whole pot less often, because it gives the underdog more chances to suck out, (or another chance for the favourite to hold if it loses the first one) such that both players win an amount that is closer to their actual equity.
If you run it once, you either win 100% or 0%. e.g. If you have 70% equity and run it twice, you might win both to get 100% of the pot (which is "running above EV"), on rare occasions you'll lose both and win 0% of the pot (which is "running way below EV"), and quite often you'll chop the pot and take 50%, which is closer to your 70% EV than either 100% or 0%.
Running it more than once can't exaggerate your winning chances. It reduces variance. That's the whole point.

What about zero edge pools? 0 rake 0 edge? We have 100 players, what will end up happening when you run it once and twice?

Look at it this way. Assuming we have a 10 bb / 100 winrate, the only reason we need to play with 20 or 50 or 100 buyins is because of variance. If there was no variance, then we could play with a single buyin and still win that 10 bb / 100. So if we had $5000, we could play 25/50, making $500 an hour, if there was no variance, but because there is we must play only 1/2 making $20 an hour.

This is why variance is a bad thing, and why reducing variance is a good thing.

If you are a winning player, then eventually you will get all the money, unless variance causes you to go broke in the meantime.

EG and EV are two different things. A money management strategy can have a higher EG despite having an equal or lower EV than another strategy. The strategy with higher EG results in a larger median bankroll.

What if there’s nowhere to move up to? If you play 2000/4000 mixed in Bobby’s Room, what’s your next step? What if the 2/5 game in your local casino is the highest game within 500 miles?

To add to this point,,,,I'm stuck in No Man's Land with 1/3 limit as the ONLY game around. However, it's not 500 miles. But I'm certainly not running 158 miles each way to play higher.......