|
|
 Originally Posted by LuckySlevin
Hey Dozer, I haven't heard an argument for why it would make sense to play all your BR in one session if I had and it was valid of course It would probabally change my mind.
Your BR is not all in play in one session if it is spread across 20 tables no more than it is if you play one table for 20 sessions. So long as you were willing to move down at the proper levels whn losing and up when winning. Playing 20K hands at one table or over 20 is the exact same thing
Originally Posted by LuckySlevin
I just see no point risking your whole bankroll in one session. Anything could happen. You could go on tilt. You could have a power outage. Your adsl/cable w/e could go down.
Other than tilt, none of this effects BR. Do you play poker?
Originally Posted by LuckySlevin
I just think it would make more sense to only have a set amount of your br in play at any one time for these reasons.
What mathematical reasons are you using to "make more sense" of this? This statement is unfounded and is a gut reaction to what you perceive as wrong, without any math to back it up or statistics on variance.
Originally Posted by LuckySlevin
If someone has reasoning why this is wrong I'd love to hear it.
I'm done
|
