[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should be very clear to anyone who has studied the math of bankroll management, risk-of-ruin, and variance that Townsend is well on his way to being effectively busto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just string together these buzzwords randomly or do you have any idea what they actually mean? Your whole post makes no sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have degrees from UCB in engineering, math, and computer science. I've been a professional financial trader for over 10 years. I've studied these concepts extensively, so to answer your question, yes, I think I know what I'm talking about.

Variance is a measure of fluctuation from the mean in a stochastic process. If a player, even a winning player, does not well-manage his variance as he increases his $ velocity (the amount of money wagered per unit of time), the normal expectation is that he will at some point lose his entire roll.

Brian's escalation of $ velocity and variance this year strike me as a pattern of ruin I've seen many times before in financial trading. If he continues like this, my guesstimate is that he will be bust by the end of the year.

Unfortunately, the poker boom has created a lot of hero worship. People want people to win because they like them, or want to live vicariously through them, not because they are making sound risk decisions.

Similarly, Brad Booth may or may not be busto, I don't know, but Sklansky's analysis was spot on. Extreme variance play at the table works for those whose bankrolls far exceed their opponents. So, long term, such play works for a Sammy Farha, who is worth perhaps $50M. But it doesn't work for a Brad Booth, who had at most $10M before he went into his horrible downswing earlier this year.

Sorry you don't like math. But ultimately, the laws of mathematics rule the gambling world.