[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
the guideline was meant to stop the endless luckyjimm style of moving up with just a few buyins then busting the whole roll and starting over again.


[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I know the origins of the 300 BB guideline, but I didn't know the 20 buy-in guess (which is far more conservative than 300 BB in typical online low stakes games) was based on anything. Shouldn't the FAQ give correct information instead of trying to stop people from doing something?

[ QUOTE ]

anybody that wants to be more aggressive with their moving up is going to do it regardless of what the FAQ says.


[/ QUOTE ]
The FAQ should not mislead people about what is conservative and what isn't. It should give correct information, and then people can make their own choices.

At NL $0.01-$0.02, if you win 20 BB/100 (much more is possible) with a standard deviation of 60 BB/100, then the FAQ's suggestion of 5000 BB (20x250 BB buy-ins) will give you a risk of ruin under 10^-24. That's like the chance of winning 3 lottery drawings in a row. Isn't that a little too conservative? It's ridiculously more conservative than playing NL $400 with 20 buy-ins.

[ QUOTE ]
if we're trying to protect new players from going bust, id say being more conservative with the FAQ is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]
Give correct information, and let people rationally risk busting out if they want to.

Bankroll management assumes busting out is a disaster. However, for most microstakes players, it isn't a disaster to lose their balances. It's an inconvenience. For a midstakes player, it is much more serious problem, since it is less common for people to have an extra $10k lying around than $100. So, the mathematical guidelines are already quite conservative for microstakes players.

When you overstate how frequently large downswings occur to winning players, you are telling people that a large loss is a weaker indicator of poor play than it really is. You also discourage people from taking shots at higher levels when they are ready, and when they would have a low risk of ruin.

Rational bankroll management is not about minimizing risk. To minimize your risk, quit poker. Bankroll management theory should help you to decide whether the added risk of playing in a higher stakes game is worth the added profit you expect to make. To make the correct tradeoffs, don't overstate the risks, or pretend that NL $400 is just as soft as NL $2.