Re: That incredibly silly subject...
Hey AleoMagus,
I think part of what you're saying is something quite similar to a point made by (at least) Caro, Ciaffone and I think Malmuth: a small bankroll requires less protection than a large one.
Anyone playing $50 sit'n'gos and below should, I hope, be able to replace a 20 buyin bankroll relatively easily, even if it all disappears in a bad run. At any rate, you should be able to replace half of it: enough to get you playing again. As the stakes go up, it becomes less and less likely that you will readily replace your playing capital if you lose it, so it makes sense to take bankroll requirements and risk of ruin very seriously.
Most high stakes poker players do not take the risks seriously enough, I think, hence the maxim that all pros go broke at least once. I simply fail to see how a "professional" can live with the idea of earning nothing for months on end and having no job at the end of it, which is what happens if you go broke; so I think these guys should take risk of ruin more seriously than they do.
Guy.
|