Most DFS players realize that cash-game players can be far more aggressive than GPP players with the percentage of their bankroll they have in play each night. That’s obviously related to the lowered variance in H2Hs and 50/50s versus tournaments.
A similar concept I think most overlook is that your style of play – particularly as a GPP player – also should affect the risk you take on. I personally use a contrarian strategy in all sports – especially MLB – that means I’m often trying to put myself in position to benefit from low-frequency events (like the Cardinals going off), whereas a chalk GPP player tries to benefit from more common occurrences (like lots of runs at Coors). My goals as a contrarian player – to maximize the chances of winning a tournament over just cashing – means I have a more volatile bankroll than a chalk GPP player.
The idea is there’s no one-size-fits-all bankroll plan, even after you control for how much of your action is split up among the cash/GPP dichotomy. Even though I’m more contrarian than most in DFS, perhaps one of the biggest knocks against the approach is you need to take a more conservative approach to bankroll management to reduce your risk of ruin.