theoretical risk of ruin question

Wynton · #1 08-29-2005, 10:20 PM

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?

7ontheline · #2 08-29-2005, 10:59 PM

If you have $35, why don't you cash out and buy a nice dinner or something? A 20 BB downswing will take about. . .2 minutes, regardless of 6-max vs. fullring. I think with such a small bankroll the difference is likely negligible. Why not just take the money?

Wynton · #3 08-29-2005, 11:10 PM

This is purely a silly exercise, a way to blow off steam at a site I dislike. It's not supposed to make sense.

Monty Cantsin · #4 08-29-2005, 11:13 PM

Yes, play full tables.

/mc

w_alloy · #5 08-30-2005, 01:21 AM

I agree with above, variance is more of a threat to your bankroll then slightly better ring players.

Edit: For evidence of this, see the number of solid 6 maxers with downswings over 300bb compared to the number of ring players. Am I wrong that this is directly applicable?

pif · #6 08-30-2005, 01:56 AM

The minimum bankroll you can use is: B=Var/Average= lets take regular Var=16 [BB^2/100], Average=4 [BB/100] Then minimum Bankroll is 16^2/4= 64BB

CanKid · #7 08-30-2005, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You absoultly cant play with 20BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

You figure?

Moozh · #8 08-30-2005, 02:24 AM

If you never set a stopping point, your risk of ruin is pretty much 100%.

That said, full seems like a much better idea for the lower variance. I'd be surprised if you could carry a 20bb bankroll past more than 3 or 4 levels though.

Wynton · #9 08-30-2005, 07:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you never set a stopping point, your risk of ruin is pretty much 100%.

That said, full seems like a much better idea for the lower variance. I'd be surprised if you could carry a 20bb bankroll past more than 3 or 4 levels though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely. But just to fill out the story, I told a few others of this plan at another forum, as a lark about how to dispose of couple of dollars at sites we don't like. This inspired a few of them to do similar exercises. Others are sticking to full tables, though.

Currently, I'm at 1/2, having just reached $40 br. I started at .25/.50. Most people predicted I would go broke at 1/2 or 2/4. I'm hoping I can make it to 3/6. I know this proves absolutely nothing, of course. Still, this did make me wonder whether my chances of going broke were greater if I sticked to six-max tables, as I have been doing.

Perhaps this is simply another way of asking whether a decent six-max player will suffer as much variance - at very low limits - as he would at the full tables. In other words, is the heightened variance natural to six-max overcome at microlimits (as compared to full tables), where a player's edge is that much greater?

hmkpoker · #10 08-30-2005, 10:54 AM

Take your money to the casino and put it on red. It'll be faster that way.