Bankroll rush. Do you crush low stakes? Excuse my silliness

[Rotterdaum]

Hi,

I hope these questions aren't considered worthless or out of line, and I'm asking out of curiosity and the fun of hearing your opinions.

1) Are you 1000 NL + players absolutely confident that if you go to say 50 NL or 100 NL, you'll be able to kill it for 5PTBB/100 + over the first 10 000 - 20 000 hands because the game is that good, or is variance so significant that even against worst players it can easily get in your way over that amount of hands?

2) In theory, for a player who can be described skillwise between good and great, how many hands would it take to make $1000 into $10 000 or $20 000, in a sort of rushed scenario, where he is not taking very large risks with the bankroll, but also is jumping stakes as quickly as is reasonable?

Hope something interesting comes out of this,
Regards, y'all

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Are you 1000 NL + players absolutely confident that if you go to say 50 NL or 100 NL, you'll be able to kill it for 5PTBB/100 + over the first 10 000 - 20 000 hands because the game is that good, or is variance so significant that even against worst players it can easily get in your way over that amount of hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

phil ivey couldnt be absolutely confident he'd destroy it over just 10000 hands.

[Rotterdaum]

OK, then, how confident are you?

[XChamp]

You can answer this exactly if you assume a winrate/100 hands and standard deviation/100 hands.

[Rotterdaum]

Well then what kind of a win rate is a 4-6bb/100 winning 2k NL player expected to have at 100 NL?

[AZK]

what's the point?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then what kind of a win rate is a 4-6bb/100 winning 2k NL player expected to have at 100 NL?

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on how tailored the player's game is to exploit the weaknesses of players at NL 2k, but I would expect that anyone winning 5 PTBB/100 at NL 2k should be able to win more than 10 PTBB/100 at NL 100, over 12 PTBB/100 at NL 50, and over 15 PTBB/100 at NL 25. It's not easy to figure out every player just because he plays for low stakes, but plenty have easily identifiable weaknesses, or seem to hate money.

The variance you should observe depends on your playing style, but it is common to have a SD/100 of 30-70 PTBB. Within 10k hands at NL 100, it becomes a 2 SD event for me to break even or lose.

If you have been beating higher games but have been losing at NL 50, then you probably have some serious leaks in your game that you should be able to identify by looking at how the NL 50 players are outplaying you. Be thankful the higher stakes players have not been exploiting those leaks.

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, then, how confident are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. i'll bite.

assume i'm a $12/100 hands player at 1-2 NL. assume my standard deviation there is $100/100 hands. over 10,000 hands the expected value of my win is $1,200. over 10,000 hands my standard deviation would be $1,000. you were asking for my level of "absolute confidence", which i guess mathematically would fall within 2.33 standard deviations from the mean (one-sided). therefore, i'm ABSOLUTELY confident i'd LOSE at most (given the EV and SD assumptions above) $1200 - 2.33*($1000) = $1130 over 10,000 hands.

moral of the story? beware saying 'absolute' to a mathematician.

[radioheadfan]

A much higher stakes player wouldn't be able to take enough 100NL seriously enough to give his best effort.

He'd probably lose money.

[Matt Flynn]

I would offer 2:1, but you would have to bet me at least 20K or the global situation is not worth it to me.