[ QUOTE ]
With all respect, your refutation of the statement above is silly. I remember
1800Gambler's poll very well. 50% of respondents said they'd give up 10% or less of EV in exchanged for a guaranteed winrate. IMO, the results of that poll indicated that a lot of advanced poker players play below their optimal stakes or that they are dilettantes when it comes to risk taking in general. I lean towards the latter.
A poker player should be willing to exchange his winnings for a guranteed income of (EV-Variance/2R), where R describes his risk tolerance. For a blackjack counter who optimized the stakes that he plays for, Variance/EV=R, and so a blackjack counter should give 50% of EV in excange for a flat rate. For a poker player who optimized the stakes, Variance/EV=m*R, where m is usually somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8, so he should be willing to part with 20-40% of his winrate depending on how comfortable he is at a given level.
[/ QUOTE ]
jesus christ, did you honestly just write that? your reasoning is that people should be willing to take a pay cut to reduce variance because there is an economic variable R called risk tolerance? the point in my original post is that in many instances, people who gamble should have very high risk tolerances while staying within their bankroll.
so if a player is playing within their bankroll and is in some way "properly" mindsetted to be a professional gambler, they should never accept money for work that is a subistitute for their gambling activity during hours which they would otherwise be participating in their gambling activity. the point in this paragraph is what i was trying, while sleepy, to get at in my other post.
i apologize for my tone in the first paragraph, but your "reasoning" involved:
a) showing up with random assed equations
b) showing up with a risk tolerance variable R and not considering what it's values should be for a professional gambler playing within his bankroll
c) showing up with a variable m which you didn't define except giving it a range
d) eh, i gots nothing more. but i really do think that my point is quite valid, and the idea of just showing up with some equations and not acutally showing anything with them is pretty nutso.
citanul