[senjitsu]

I assumed from the context of the original post that the 13:1 represented a relatively small bet into a large pot (like, you're paying $20 into a $260 pot). Is it talking about calling a large bet into an enormous pot?

Regardless, if you're talking about wether your bankroll can survive a loss in a particular game, the game is beyond your bankroll, and you shouldn't be there in the first place. If you play NL/PL, you should be able to bust out of the table BI without doing significant harm to your bankroll.


[ QUOTE ]
Just read Ciaffone's/Reuben's book... about four times in a row. Great read.
As far as taking 13:1 shot if the pot is offering you 14:1 odds, I'd do it if I was playing on a virtually unlimited bankroll since I'm going to miss 12 times and lose my money, make it once and win back only about 7% on top of that. Is it +EV?... uh, yes... is it worth it? No.
... Except if you're betting. I'm known as a very aggressive player since I don't need very much to bet - a decent hand, a gutshut draw, or any time I sense weakness. My point is that I wouldn't call a long shot, especially for any significant part of my bankroll, just because it's marginally +EV. I'm fairly certain I'll find a better spot to put my money in in another two hours later in the session. But I would BET that long shot in certain spots since the folding equity swings that entire equation into very positive territory.

Kirk R.

[/ QUOTE ]