Dazarath
08-04-2005, 02:11 PM
I started thinking about new players who run hot, and I came up with this question. There are a lot of new players who go on a rush and then play above their bankroll.
Let's I start out with x BBs, where x is the amount I need to have a 50% risk of ruin and that I move up stakes when I have x BBs for the next level. Again, I have a 50% RoR for that level. It seems to me that I'm basically setting myself up to go broke, as I'm always keeping myself at a 50% RoR. I understand, that if I win some, my RoR decreases for my current stakes, until I move up. I also realize that I can't keep going up forever, so if I stop moving up in stakes, and I don't go broke, I will eventually have a correct bankroll for the highest stakes. This is basically what I've seen or heard of inexperienced players doing: buying in for $50 at Party and playing 0.50/1 until they have $100 and then moving to 1/2, etc.
It seems to me that the player is basically pulling a reverse Martingale on himself and is setting himself up for an inevitable loss (technically not 100%, but close). Now, we're taught to have 300 BBs so our RoR is low. For the purposes of discussion, let's just say it's always 5% when we move up. We'll also assume that we're smart enough to drop down in stakes if we fall to 300 BBs of the previous level, and then we're back at 5% RoR.
Here's where I'm having trouble understanding the concept and I was hoping someone could clarify this for me. Aren't we also putting ourselves in a similar situation, but not as extreme? Or is it different because we're willing to drop down in stakes? What if we made the assumption that we will never drop down in stakes, then are we setting ourselves up for an almost inevitable loss? The best explanation that I've been able to come up with so far is that the willingness to drop down changes the equation and reduces our true RoR to almost nothing, because when we lose half of our bankroll, we drop down in stakes so our RoR is back down to 5%. Obviously, all of the long-term players on this forum prove this wrong, but I was hoping someone could offer a mathematical explanation of where my thinking is off.
Let's I start out with x BBs, where x is the amount I need to have a 50% risk of ruin and that I move up stakes when I have x BBs for the next level. Again, I have a 50% RoR for that level. It seems to me that I'm basically setting myself up to go broke, as I'm always keeping myself at a 50% RoR. I understand, that if I win some, my RoR decreases for my current stakes, until I move up. I also realize that I can't keep going up forever, so if I stop moving up in stakes, and I don't go broke, I will eventually have a correct bankroll for the highest stakes. This is basically what I've seen or heard of inexperienced players doing: buying in for $50 at Party and playing 0.50/1 until they have $100 and then moving to 1/2, etc.
It seems to me that the player is basically pulling a reverse Martingale on himself and is setting himself up for an inevitable loss (technically not 100%, but close). Now, we're taught to have 300 BBs so our RoR is low. For the purposes of discussion, let's just say it's always 5% when we move up. We'll also assume that we're smart enough to drop down in stakes if we fall to 300 BBs of the previous level, and then we're back at 5% RoR.
Here's where I'm having trouble understanding the concept and I was hoping someone could clarify this for me. Aren't we also putting ourselves in a similar situation, but not as extreme? Or is it different because we're willing to drop down in stakes? What if we made the assumption that we will never drop down in stakes, then are we setting ourselves up for an almost inevitable loss? The best explanation that I've been able to come up with so far is that the willingness to drop down changes the equation and reduces our true RoR to almost nothing, because when we lose half of our bankroll, we drop down in stakes so our RoR is back down to 5%. Obviously, all of the long-term players on this forum prove this wrong, but I was hoping someone could offer a mathematical explanation of where my thinking is off.