Well I think you're abusing the term bankroll here man.
If you only had 200 bucks on PS, designated this your 'PS bankroll', and vowed never to deposit again even if it drops to whatever it's at now, then that was NOT enough for a 1/2 game.
If you plan on depositing 300 bucks onto PS, call it your 'PS bankroll' to play 3/6, and promise never to deposit again should you lose it, then that is NOT enough for 3/6.
This is what I was trying to say. If what you had was all the money you could 'play' with on PS, then you were taking a large risk moving up with such a shallow roll. Sure it's enough for 1 or 2 or 3 sessions, but the variance could and did eat that roll up ez.
You also shoulda taken into account the swings you'd face with so many loose players and chasers... --- IMHO this is a good thing
.
I presume you've read 'Gambling Theory and other Topics'? Well I haven't *laughs*. But it's in the mail
. lol! I believe the author says in there that the likelyhood of someone busting 300BB bankroll, assuming they can reasonably beat the game, was like 5 percent. (I think I read this in the archives of 2+2... aka: A gold mine). And this's with 300big bets! You're only playing with 100 big bets [edit: or 150 big bets at the 3/6].
Cheers,
Gutzz