Value of Your Roll/Risk Aversion

[felix83]

I was lying in bed last night and this thought came to me: you're sitting HU against a guy who really has no value for money. He's first to act but you've foolishly looked at your cards first. You look down at Q8o, and notice that he hasn't yet checked his cards. He moves you all in.

My question is, how big a bet would you call, knowing your hand is slightly better than average? Or alternatively, what's the worst hand you would pick up in this case that you'd risk your whole bankroll on (if any)?

Given your example, it's possible he may have picked up some sort of read on the way you looked at your cards and senses you will fold. Generally, I would fold this given your example, as if she truly has no respect for money, there will be many better spots in which to get my money.

I would generally call with any A, any pair, KQs and maybe KJs.

[sfer]

Seems like you can pick a better spot if he's going to indiscriminately push, no?

[Lash]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like you can pick a better spot if he's going to indiscriminately push, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

[felix83]

Makes sense. So just to be difficult, maybe I can modify it and say he's about to get up and leave the table after this hand.

[Sciolist]

Sure, I'd play. Unless he's got some kind of ninja reading skill: "OK, I see he's wondering what to do if I went allin here, therefore he has Q8", he's going to be reading you for weakness, or he's going to be stupid. So it's a call vs. a random hand.

And I'd never risk my entire bankroll on one thing, unless I was going to die tomorrow and I couldn't think of anything better to do with my 24 hours.

[felix83]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'd never risk my entire bankroll on one thing, unless I was going to die tomorrow and I couldn't think of anything better to do with my 24 hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is in the area of an answer I was curious to see. I remember reading part of SS where Doyle mentions somewhere that he would risk his whole bankroll on something because he knew he could win it back. So I guess I wanted to see whether anyone here was confident (or crazy) enough to say the same.

[ QUOTE ]
This is in the area of an answer I was curious to see. I remember reading part of SS where Doyle mentions somewhere that he would risk his whole bankroll on something because he knew he could win it back. So I guess I wanted to see whether anyone here was confident (or crazy) enough to say the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the determining factor would be the size of my bankroll. I'd be more willing to risk a BR less than $1000 on a fairly marginal decision than a BR greater than $2000. With other sources of income, I could much more easily replace the smaller bankroll than the larger one. While the numbers may be different, I think a similar effect should be true for most people.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is in the area of an answer I was curious to see. I remember reading part of SS where Doyle mentions somewhere that he would risk his whole bankroll on something because he knew he could win it back. So I guess I wanted to see whether anyone here was confident (or crazy) enough to say the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the determining factor would be the size of my bankroll. I'd be more willing to risk a BR less than $1000 on a fairly marginal decision than a BR greater than $2000. With other sources of income, I could much more easily replace the smaller bankroll than the larger one. While the numbers may be different, I think a similar effect should be true for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close but I think the size of the roll is not needed. What we are looking for is the ability / time required to replenish after going broke as well as other opportunities that we would have to forego during that time.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is in the area of an answer I was curious to see. I remember reading part of SS where Doyle mentions somewhere that he would risk his whole bankroll on something because he knew he could win it back. So I guess I wanted to see whether anyone here was confident (or crazy) enough to say the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the determining factor would be the size of my bankroll. I'd be more willing to risk a BR less than $1000 on a fairly marginal decision than a BR greater than $2000. With other sources of income, I could much more easily replace the smaller bankroll than the larger one. While the numbers may be different, I think a similar effect should be true for most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close but I think the size of the roll is not needed. What we are looking for is the ability / time required to replenish after going broke as well as other opportunities that we would have to forego during that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You just have to compare your ev on the bet, with the cost/time it would take you to get back to full earning capacity if you lost. This is just a matter of how much you can borrow, and how long it would take you to run that amount up into a comfortable bankroll for your regular game and pay back the loan.

For example, if your bankroll is 60k and you usually make 5k a week, and if you lose, it will take you 10 weeks to get back into your regular game, you'd have to be at least a 5-1 favorite to put your whole bankroll in on one hand.

If you are capable of beating higher games than you are currently playing, but don't have the bankroll for whatever reason, this complicates the equation and you must also look at your extra earn with double the bankroll and how long it would take you to double your roll grinding it out in your current game. As practical matter, it probably never comes to this, but there could be situations where it would be correct to put your entire roll in as underdog because the benefits of instantly doubling your roll would be greater than the detriment of having to borrow and grind for awhile.