[BillC]

Thanks for introducing the topic of utility. It is true that utility and risk aversion should be factored in to poker theory. I hope to address this in an upcoming article.
I just want to point out here that risk neutrality means that you totally ignore variance (=risk) and only consider EV. No rational player is risk-neutral, except those with infinite bankrolls. Risk neutrality would mean that you would equate a risk free return with a bet with the same EV. If there is (and there is) another definition of risk neutrality, it should be clarified.

Another question: Is NL and PL poker really riskier, if you choose games with similar EV? You have to compare apples to apples. E.g. compare 10-20 limit to 200, 2-4 NL. I have heard it said that in the NL game, the bad suckouts are fewer, which decreases risk.