Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth

[gtrunner57]

I noticed that on page 88, Malmuth writes "Even though it is true that the standard deviation is larger in no-limit hold'em, the real expert will also have a much larger win rate, meaning that he probably won't need as much money to ensure survival."

However, Malmuth's formula for a bankroll requirement as a function of standard deviation and win rate on page 59 has the standard deviation being squared over the win rate. This would imply that the standard deviation has a larger effect on the bankroll requirement, assuming similar changes in standard deviation and win rate.

I have been very impressed by the analysis and reasoning that Malmuth uses throughout his arguments in <u>Poker Essays</u>. I am just trying to figure out his reasoning on this issue. Is it because the standard deviation does not increase very much compared with a large increase in win rate when comparing limit to no-limit hold'em? Even if it does not increase proportionally as much, any increase would seem to have a large effect since the standard deviation itself is much larger than that of win rate.

I am hoping for someone to clear this up for me. Thanks for any replies.