BR disagreement/fallacy

[WhiteWolf]

Interesting points on this thread.

On the one hand, as many posters have noted, a player with a 200BB bankroll has exactly the same risk of ruin as the identical player who started out with a 500BB bankroll but has been on a 300BB downswing (of course, this is treating each hand as an independent event + ignoring factors such as tilt, etc).

On the other hand, presumably the player who started with the 500BB decided on what risk of ruin factor he was willing to accept, and arrived at the 500BB size based on the factor. By moving down (effectively increasing the number of BB's he can play with), he is showing that he is actually much more risk adverse then his original calculation assumed. He should have have started with a bigger bankroll, which would have allowed he to stay at the higher limits for longer + increased his EV as expressed in dollars.

Perhaps this shows how you could use the mixed strategy to play at higher stakes for a given risk of ruin. Say I had a 4000 bankroll and decided that a 400BB bankroll gives me the risk of ruin I am willing to accept. The normal strategy would have me starting at 5/10 limits. But if I adapt the variable strategy, I could start at 10/20 (giving me 200BB),
move to 5/10 if I lose 100BB (Putting me at 200BB for the lower limit), and move down again if I lose another 100BB (giving me a final 200BB at 2/5). For the same 400BB my risk of ruin calculation said I needed, I could start at a higher limit and potentially increase my $EV as opposed to a flat strategy...

- The Wolf