[teddyFBI]

I don't deny that perhaps I'm using a different definition of "bankroll".

If you framed the question -- as many here are attempting to do -- would you wager on AA (or any 80 - 85% game of chance) with the understanding that not only would you lose your entire poker bankroll, but you would be bound never to play poker again (or even not play for the next 5 years), I would not take it. MicroBob is correct that I'm simply not willing to take a 20% chance of being unable to make my steady poker income.

But of course that scenario is flawed (depending on your def. of bankroll, i suppose). If you extrapolate the hypothetical to a very real real-life decision, though -- and for me that scenario looks like this:

- Would I put my entire accumulated poker winnings, perhaps $110,000, on AA (or any 80% favorite game of chance), with the understanding that if I lost it, I'd be free to dip into my savings, exercise part of my accumulated 401(K) (even with the early withdrawal penalty), or heck, even take out a personal bank loan at a shitty interest rate, so I could fund my poker playing, then yes - i would do it. If it meant that my poker career would be over, then no, i wouldn't.

I don't think that's cheating with a modified definition of bankroll. TO the contrary, I think the situation just described presents the most realistic scenario in which to consider this problem. It's those who choose to define bankroll as "future ability to ever play poker again" who I think are 'cheating' here.