Bankroll formula?

[TC]

All of the 'bankroll?' threads always seem to end with someone
recommending 200-300BB, depending on win expectation, risk you're willing
to take, etc. Is there anywhere online that provides the exact way to
calculate your necessary bankroll yourself, in detail, given all of the
variables?

TC

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Tom Weideman]

On 7/31/03 9:33 AM, in article
3f2944ec$0$5025$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com, "TC" <anonymous@fukk.org>
wrote:

> All of the 'bankroll?' threads always seem to end with someone
> recommending 200-300BB, depending on win expectation, risk you're willing
> to take, etc. Is there anywhere online that provides the exact way to
> calculate your necessary bankroll yourself, in detail, given all of the
> variables?

http://tinyurl.com/in3e

Tom Weideman

[RTN4]

On 31 Jul 2003 16:33:48 GMT, "TC" <anonymous@fukk.org> wrote:

>Is there anywhere online that provides the exact way to
>calculate your necessary bankroll yourself, in detail, given all of the
>variables?

(9 * win rate) * (standard deviation squared) / 4 * hourly rate

[Kkiely]

(9 * win rate) * (standard deviation squared) / 4 * hourly rate

*********
where did you get this formula?

[RTN4]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:47:13 -0700, RTN4 <RTN4@charter.net> wrote:

>(9 * win rate) * (standard deviation squared) / 4 * hourly rate

Make that:

9 times your standard deviation squared divided by 4 times your hourly
rate.

9*sd^2/4*hr

[Tom Weideman]

On 7/31/03 10:48 PM, in article rkvjiv8j5tt5iqcgbj3aatai0mvjlbkaoh@4ax.com,
"RTN4" <RTN4@charter.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:47:13 -0700, RTN4 <RTN4@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> (9 * win rate) * (standard deviation squared) / 4 * hourly rate
>
> Make that:
>
> 9 times your standard deviation squared divided by 4 times your hourly
> rate.
>
> 9*sd^2/4*hr

Hard to believe people are still quoting this after it was shown to be
incorrect so many years ago. I guess there is something truly enduring
about printing it in a book, even if it is wrong. See my post earlier in
this thread for a link to the correct formula.


Tom Weideman

[RTN4]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:46:06 -0700, Tom Weideman
<no_spam_i@hortas_rule.net> wrote:

>Hard to believe people are still quoting this after it was shown to be
>incorrect so many years ago. I guess there is something truly enduring
>about printing it in a book, even if it is wrong.

> See my post earlier in
>this thread for a link to the correct formula.

I read that link, but I didn't understand one word of it. Perhaps you
could parse it for me?