[TNixon]

Ok, so in order to determine if there is actually something to glean out of this, or if you've just been attempting to feed me a line completely unjustified by logic (which I have tried to provide in as much abundance as possible, to give opportunities to point out holes in the underlying thought processes), answer one question for me.

Two players with the same bankroll size, skill level, and winrate.

Player A plays 0.5/$1 tables and always buys in for the max $100.

Player B plays $5/$10 tables and buys in for $100.

Which of these two players is going to experience the widest swings in his bankroll? Which player is least likely to go broke over, say, 100 hands?

If your answer is player B, be prepared to defend your answer with something slightly stronger than "You don't understand the mathematical definition of variance".

Oh, and yes, despite the fact that I typed this:
[ QUOTE ]
and that a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll is not the same as a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do, in fact realize that a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll is exactly the same as a $5 swing in a $50 bankroll. Is this just further evidence of my lack of understanding, or do I actually get credit for a typo here?

Confrontationally yours,