That's basically what I was thinking when I read the article. I always thought that the concept of not using stop-losses, or never leaving a game that is still +EV, was based on the assumption that the player is adequately bankrolled for the game in the first place. Isn't that a fundamental assumption that we have to make whenever we talk about whether it is worthwhile for someone to make any +EV wager? When Sklansky wrote about propping your eyes open with toothpicks to remain in a +EV game, I don't think he was talking about a situation where you're a slight favorite but risk losing everything you own if you lose.

If the point of the article is to say that EV is not the only factor to consider when deciding whether to play a game, then I agree. Clearly you have to balance maximizing your EV with keeping your variance within an acceptable range for your bankroll. The article gives a good example of a situation where it is justifiable to leave a +EV game, but I would argue that the player should never have been in the game to begin with. This is not an example of why using a stop-loss strategy is sometimes a good idea, it's an example of why playing above your bankroll is always a bad idea.

If it's the 30th of the month and this "pro" has a mortgage payment due the next day and he doesn't have enough to pay it without getting lucky at the poker table that night, he has far more serious issues to confront than whether it's okay to leave a +EV game. What's he going to do if he loses that night? If he wins, what does he do after making the mortgage payment leaves him with almost no money left? Does he then set out to earn next month's payment by playing in more games he clearly can't afford? These are signs of a degenerate gambler, not a person who should be playing poker for a living.

I'm not saying you should never leave a +EV game. There are clearly emotional or psychological reasons why one might leave such a game. There's also the fact that there's more to life than money, which would lead any rational person to stop playing from time to time, even if it was always +EV for them to stay. But saying that someone should leave a +EV game for financial reasons is just a sign that they didn't belong in the game in the first place. Is it correct for them to leave? Absolutely, but I think that focusing on how the stop-loss strategy was a good idea is sort of missing the point.