[bustedromo]

Here's what's interesting to me:

(a) high # of opps with moderate +EV, each of which require small % of capital

vs

(b) small # of opps with very high +EV, each of which require very large % of capital

In poker, by "opps" I mean a session at a specific table, not hands. (b) would obviously require a lot less time than (a) to make the same income.

There are lots of example of (a) and (b) in trading. There are big name traders who don't have a problem committing 1000% (10x) leverage of their risk capital on a single (b) trade.

I don't think there is a (b) poker scenario. Those type of heavily skewed dist curves don't exist in poker.

An example I don't really believe would pan out is the following:

Take a very good 10/20 grinder whose bread-and-butter is games where bad players show up occassionally, lose a buy-in or two and walk. He sees a 100/200 game with a whale capable of donating millions who shows no problem losing buyin after buyin. He's extremely confident he can play avoidance with the pros at the table and take his share of blubber. His roll is 200K, and he's used to 2K buyins = 1% BR.

Should he step-up to 20K buyins = 10% BR ? Is the answer any different if he has a rule that he quits the table if he loses 1 buyin ? 2 buyins ?