Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?

[ChipStorm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the answer is low enough (I'll take 1/3 my win rate to be guaranteed a win!), you should be able to find a backer.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING DING. We have a winner. This is exactly what I am getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just factoring your win rate out among the two forms of capital employed: return on dollars (buyins held for play) and return on time (hourly rate). All you're asking here is, what is the ratio of these two values? This seems like it would be a good exercise for anyone.

If you are guaranteed to win every (session, table, hand...), then you can reduce your buyins held by some 90-odd percent. But your time invested will remain the same. So a 50-50 split of your earn between return on buyins held and hourly rate means that with a guaranteed win you would take a ~50% reduction in earn.

All this assumes one thing (that I think most posters also assumed): variance does not affect the base amount you invest of each form of capital. That is, the number of buyins you keep available, and the number of hours a week you play, remain more or less constant regardless of whether you're on a heater or a downswing.

[Leptyne]

I feel this is a lifestyle question of secutity that plagues people. There is a dfference in the security of working for a wage with excellent benefits and a nice retirement plan v. working on a commission basis with no benefits. The same example applies to the difference in investing your money in the market, or a business, v. buying Government Bonds.

So, when you adapt your game to eliminate risk, and take the resultant lower, but constant earnings, the question would become how much risk would you be willing to take to increase your earnings.

The problem of emotional balance is a situation that each player has to come to terms with....and deal with individually.