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?

[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.

[Rotterdaum]

[ QUOTE ]
what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as always? OP learns, discussion
I just want to know from higher stakes lpayers whether it's generally thought low stakes are easy to beat or are they hard in their own way because of their chaotic nature.

After playing 400-600 NL for quite a while and doing all right, I've had the most horrible downswing or I don't know what and now I've been consistently losing at 50 NL for about 20 000 hands. Is this easily explainable, or strange?

Any thoughts about the 2nd question?

[Rotterdaum]

I suppose I know the answer, low stakes is incredibly +EV, but I just don't undersatnd other than variance why things have been going the way they have, and at what point can I say that it's ridiculous?