[prodonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jesus do you understand aggressive bankrolling? i saw a long mathematical post explaining why if you have a half decent winrate and are prepared to move down, a 7.5 buy in bankroll is optimal. the ignorance and misplaced condescention of that post just tilted me a little. hell i think the bankroll post is stickyed. not all of us are nits terrified of busto/ lower limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

An optimal bankroll amount can be answered mathematically using the Kelly criterion . This says that if your win-rate is p and your odds on the wager is v-to-1 , then we should risk :

f=[p*(v+1) - p]/v where v in this case is 1/1.05 or about 0.95

So this tells us that there is no fixed optimal number since we're dealing with a variable win rate . However , your optimal bankroll can be determined if we know your long term win rate and the odds received on the wager . For instance , if p =58% and v~ 0.95 , then we should be willing to risk

f=[0.58*(1.95) -1 ]/0.95
f= 13.7% or about 13% of our bankroll on the wager . Many players use half-Kelly or about 13.7%/2 = 6.8% to avoid fluctuations in their bankroll while at the same time maintaining a strong growth rate .

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your risk of ruin using that is HUGE. My win rate is 59%, so 1/2 kelly would give me 8%.. I should be playing sngs for 8% of my roll?? So give me a hypothetical 3k roll.. I should be playing 200's heads up, that's like 15 buy ins.