theoretical risk of ruin question
Here's the background to my question:
I had a small amount at a site I hate, and decided to embark on a silly exercise. Simply put, I would play at the highest stakes I could muster 20 bb at, and see how high I could build the br, never allowing myself to move down. (Currently, I am playing .50/1 with about $35, with plans to move to 1/2 as soon as I have $40). Since I hate the site, I don'tt really care if I bust out fast.
But the following question arose in my mind: is my risk of going broke greater playing six-max - at limits where the players figure to be as bad as anywhere - than it would be if I were playing at the full tables? On one hand, my edge presumably is greater at the six-max tables. On the other hand, these games have so many players seeing the flop that my variance figures to be higher.
Anyone have an opinion about this? Playing with no more than 20 bb - and starting at microlimits - is my risk of ruin (or the risk of a presumptively good six-max player) greater or smaller playing six-max tables than it would be playing full tables?
|