[AAAA]

i think it was the Ozzie who owned some huge communication network. The Texan thought he was tough stuff with his hundred million and the guy, who can't stand people who are full of themselves offered to flip him for it, and meant it. He could actually afford to lose $100,000,000 and not miss it, because he earns so much so fast that it wouldn't bother him, but the Texan, couldn't afford to lose it all.

No one has mentioned Utility Theory at all so far in this thread. I thought that was in some of the Sklansky/Malmuth books or was that Poker Essays? They talked about the fact that the fun you have winning isn't as good as the pain you would have losing.

Therefore the theory says you should not make that bet if it were really your whole bankroll.

Pardon me if someone says this later in the thread, but my bankroll for 1020 is in the 1000BB+ category, and even though poker playing isn't my only source of income, I wouldn't consider putting it all on the line for one bet.

Why should I? I have enough money, and the extra wouldn't make my life that much better.

This isn't even considering the possibility of a cooler deck. Did I cut the cards? Did I leave the room when the cards were shuffled?