Poll on risk aversion: a continuation of the Bankroll on AA thread

[Derek in NYC]

I started a different thread, but Sfer had a great idea, which I decided to make into a poll. Assume the following:

Your entire bankroll must be at stake. If you lose it, you will be unable to continue to play poker at the level you are accustomed to, and must rebuild.

Bill Gates offers you a proposition bet. You think of a whole number between 1 and X, inclusive. Gates guesses. If you win, you double your bankroll. If you lose, you wait for July's rakeback and start over. How big does X have to be? (The question essentially asks you to define the odds you require to risk your bankroll.

[W. Deranged]

Anyone who answers "2" should seriously consider Gambler's Anonymous.

[hobbsmann]

Nice, I picked 3 as well.

[Derek in NYC]

Anybody who picked 3 should be in the NL forum instead of SSH.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody who picked 3 should be in the NL forum instead of SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH.

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

Bill Gates offers you a proposition bet: You think of a whole number between 1 and X, inclusive. Gates guesses. If you win, you double your bankroll. How big does X have to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I only have to "think" of the number, I pick 2 and plan to cheat.

[callmedonnie]

I said ten as that is a great bet, but I am tempted to do more. The reasoning that I want an even better bet, and more than 20 times my bankroll might not be negative EV for him. So I want him dropping as much as possible, as its all peanuts.

After all, this is a guy who loses $ if he takes time to go out of his way and pick up a twenty. He's gonna have to cough it up. That's why I'm gonna get him wasted before making this wager.

Are you guys just curious as to how risk adverse the poker community is, or is there another reason for all the interest on this topic?

[jskills]

This bet makes no sense. If you could simulate repititions where you'd win 17 times out of 100, one could say that the odds would have to be 6-1 in order for the payoff to make sense.

Except, unlike hands we play over and over again in limit, this one is for your *whole banroll*. You don't get another chance (or 4) to make the odds balance it out (unless we're saying I have unlimited opportunities to take Bill up on this bet. And still I'd need another year to build the BR up again).

It's like playing russian roulette. Sure I have great odds to not get shot, but when I do, I never get to play again.

There should be a choice in the poll for "I'd never take this bet. Period."

[Derek in NYC]

I think it is particularly interesting to think about risk seeking/averse thinking among poker players. Compared to the rest of society, poker players should think more clearly about risk than others.

At the same time, there has been a lot written recently--in this forum, in Barry G's book, in the Stu Ungar biography, in the Professor, Banker book, etc--about the need to have "gamble" in order to succeed as a poker player (at least at the highest stakes).

I also find it interesting to ask the question here, in the SSH forum, because limit players are almost by definition more risk averse than no limit players. We are, in the structure of the game we play, unable to take the most non-self weighting betting strategy available to us. Let's face it, in the current WSOP/WPT environment, if you're not playing NL games, you're deliberately avoiding that action.

Finally, on a personal note, it is helpful for me to think about my own risk aversion. As some here would quickly tell you, I am a nit. I play way overbankrolled, and move up so deliberately and slowly, that you'd think I had to rely on my bankroll to eat. Oddly, the opposite is true--my bankroll is of no material financial consequence to me.

My aspiration is to move up and eventually play in big games, both live and online. I suspect that at some point, my severe risk aversion will present a barrier to continued progress. (Oddly, I dont think I usually play weak-tight--I just avoid limits that make me feel uncomfortable.)