Dumb Question

[dopp16]

If you have a long track record of making $37/hour in a 20/40 game. And a long record of making $41/hour in a 30/60 game, both live and both with well over 4 years of data; could it be argued that the 20/40 game is a better game to play because of the earnings/volitility ratio? Maybe I am having a brain fart of a day, but I can think of arguments both ways.

Flame away!!

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Three ways of looking at this. You could look at the results and say, I want to play 20/40 to secure my bankroll, limit stress and volatility. Or you could say, I want to play the 30/60 game, make improvements and adjustments, and try to get more $$$$. The third is, look at the players in either game and simple play whichever looks like an easier game.

[mvdgaag]

I'd go for 20/40 to get a bankroll to play higher than 30/60.

[Albert Moulton]

$41/hour > $37/hour if you can play the same number of hours. So it seems that unless you have a much higher % risk of ruin at the higher level due to bankroll constraints, then you should always play at the higher level and make an extra $4/hour.

However, if your risk of ruin is much higher at the higher level so that you could end up not being able to play anymore if you run into a downswing, then the lower limit and lower rate might be better.

I'm sure there is a bankroll and %ROR relative to win rate calculation to figure out here, I just don't know what it is.

[dopp16]

How about if we add a variable that for the last four years, I have played full time for a living. Now I use poker a supplement to my full-time employment. Because I cant put the hours in that I used to, how does this effect the risk/return ratio?

[DigitalDeuce]

Firstly, I agree that whichever game looks more beatable when given the option is the game to play.

Overall, if you're rolled comforatbly for 30/60 play there. However, looking at it from a purely BB earned stand point, you're doing much better at 20/40 than at 30/60, which means either the 30/60 is a tougher game, you haven't adjusted to it fully, or you have some holes in your game that you still need to work on.

In that case, I lean toward recommending 20/40 but say to sit at 30/60 when the game looks good.

Is your 30/60 sample size not as complete a picture as your 20/40? Meaning, could you have a lack of data to show that you are making more at 30/60 than you could be (adjusting for variance in the smaller sample size).

D_D

[dopp16]

[ QUOTE ]

Is your 30/60 sample size not as complete a picture as your 20/40? Meaning, could you have a lack of data to show that you are making more at 30/60 than you could be (adjusting for variance in the smaller sample size).

D_D

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample sizes are adequate. And FWIW, the two casinos were in separate cities. The question is just theory, I would not use the info to select a game, more of a hypothetical.

[GiantBuddha]

Your lower winrate (in BBs) should make your ROR significantly higher in the 30/60 game since you also have fewer BBs in your bankroll. But if you have a full time job, then you don't really need a bankroll, per se.

[AkuJoe]

Risk of ruin calculator:
http://www.poker-tools-online.com/riskofruin.html

[Abbaddabba]

If you just assume that your winrate estimates are accurate and that those two games were the only choices, then based on that example the 20/40 is the easy choice for me and i would assume most people.

Assuming 30-35ish hands/hour, that puts your 20/40 winrate at about 3BB/100. And for 30/60, your winrate would be about 2BB/100.

Even without the added risk of ruin, it'll just make your life easier. You'll be able to play more hours. You'll be more relaxed, happier and less inclined to "tilt".


There is a point where the money would be so much that i'd be willing to accept hte increase in volatility. But $4/hour isnt it. Maybe im spoiled by online play though where $4/hour is peanuts.