[john kane]

Thank you for the replies so far.

My problem with the concept of risk of ruin is this;

You want to keep your risk of ruin at a certain percentage with which you are happy with e.g 5%

And so as the equation goes, if the bankroll decreases, and you are playing at the same limit (hence standard deviation and win rate are constant), so the risk of ruin must therefore increase as it is a function of ln.

Suppose in the perfect poker world you are not constrained by defined limits (5-10, 15-30 etc), but after every hand you can effectively moves tables to the exact limit you want in accordance with your new bankroll to keep your risk of ruin at 5% (which is what you are effectively doing, but just rather after every hand after x number of hands). either that or you agree with the table that in advance you will be setting the limits after every hand.
for example, your bankroll is 3,000 and you are playing 5-10. after the first hand your bankroll is 2,990. you now set the table limits at 4.999-9.9999. this is therefore marginally reducing the win rate and standard deviation, in proportion to the bankroll, hence keeping the risk of ruin at a constant. Basically a perfect world of different limits.

Now if this perfect poker setting limit world existed, then you would therefore never lose you bankroll, you would always be playing within your means, even you went as low as 50 cents, you could still set the table limits as 0.08-0.16 cents, so your risk of ruin would still be 5%.

so when does 'ruin' occur?

i remember reading the caro article about this (which included the equation the poster above noted), and im sure im missing something very much needed to understand this.

i just fail to see how you will ever be totally ruined if you are always lowering the limits you play at.

what is the definition of 'ruin'?

once again, replies will be much appreciated