[DWarrior]

I was just reading the article in the newest 2+2 issue about this, it's titled something like "what poker players can learn from blackjack players", and in there, the formula he gives for having a bankroll that will grow most optimally is EV/SD, I think, but he does say that there is a 50% risk of ruin in that.

I think that Poker is a hybrid between investing in securities and work, because my primary concern isn't ROI, but rather $/hr (or BB/hr, whatever floats your boat).

In investing, I don't see much point in trying to compute your hourly rate every step of the way, but you can look back after several years and see if the time spent was worthwhile. It seems like investing is converting money into more money.

Similarly, when you're going to your job, it's a bit silly to look at your savings account as your "bankroll" and consider your wage as ROI. You're really converting time into money. However, I suspect after several years, you can look at the growth of your savings account and see if taking up another endeavor would have yielded better profits.

I see poker as being somewhere in between, where you're converting both time and money into money. Who do you think does better, a person with $10 bankroll winning $20 in a freeroll after 3 hours of work (200% ROI), or a person with a $1000 bankroll winning $20 in ring games after an hour of work (2% ROI)?

Also, you won't always make higher returns with more money you have, it's just that there is no difference between $100,000 and $500,000 is the US markets today. If you made 20% returns consistently on $100,000 doesnt' mean you'd make the same 20% returns on $50 billion, it's just that the amount of money for the diminishing returns to kick in are so high that most regular people never experience it, as most investors don't control enough funds to move markets.