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

[peterchi]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

but i'm currently better at limit...

i sort of understand your logic, but not entirely.

the reflection of my choosing 3 is that i am willing to take shots above my bankroll when games look good.

i am young, i have a job, and actually i'm young enough and lucky enough that my parents will still bail me out if i really [censored] up. losing my poker bankroll will make me cry but not jump off a bridge.

but i mostly play limit because that's where i win more right now.

[Derek in NYC]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly untrue. If X were 1 billion, you would take the gamble.

[sfer]

The bet makes all the sense in the world unless you would kill yourself upon losing. There is some probability of winning at which you are willing to wager a huge some of money. Period.

[peterchi]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly untrue. If X were 1 billion, you would take the gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... if you were a professional, living off of your bankroll, with no parents, no other job, bad credit so you can't take out any loans, and no friends to stake you, then you'd still have to think very long and hard to take even 1 billion : 1 odds.

just saying. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
The bet makes all the sense in the world unless you would kill yourself upon losing. There is some probability of winning at which you are willing to wager a huge some of money. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poll is about risk aversion. Yes there is "some" probability of winning, but not one good enough for me to risk what has taken a long time to build on a one shot deal. Again, we have no way to repeat this bet for statistical purposes, so once you lose (and most of the time you will), you're back to zero with no way of repeating the bet.

If I could be guaranteed the ability to have Bill give me these odds anytime I wanted for my entire BR, we'd be talking about a different scenario.

But in a practical sense, trying this once makes little sense, regardless of the odds.

[jskills]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly untrue. If X were 1 billion, you would take the gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if I only get one time to try this and it's for my entire roll. I wouldn't. I guess everyone is smarter than me.

[Derek in NYC]

You would not take a one-time gamble to get paid 2:1 on your money, where the odds of losing were one trillion factorial-to-1? Come on.

[Derek in NYC]

Now as a certifiable nit, let me ask: why do you play poker at all? You should stick to chess.

[sthief09]

I really don't have that much interest in doubling my bankroll for poker purposes. money is cool, so there has to be some number, but there's definitely diminishing marginal returns, or whatever that term from freshman econ was. at this point if you said I have a 50/50 chance fo winning $20,000 or losing $15,000 I wouldn't take it.

I guess it's gotta be the point where EV = opportunity cost if you go broke. If I can make $250/hr at 10/20 and $50 an hour at 3/6 (off July rakeback of $1500), for 50 hours, then play 5/10 for $120/hr for another 50 hours, that gives me enough to play 10/20 again, and that gives me $8500 for 100 hours. I would've made $25,000 at 10/20, so it cost me $17,000. in addition, that $25,000 from 10/20 will put me in position to take lots more shots at 30/60, which is what I gain from winning the bet, so that's almost a wash. so if I lose, I lose my roll + $17,000. if I win, I win the amoutn of my roll.

so 17,000 has to equal the EV for me to do it
EV = my roll*((x-2)/x)
17 = r - 2r/x
2r/(r-17) = x

and more generically, x = 2 times your bankroll divided by the difference between your roll and the opportunity cost

round it up for the annoyance and loss of potential growth as a player from having to play 3/6 again, and I'm looking at x=5


now, clearly your EV can't be larger than your actual bankroll. so if the opportunity cost of losing (say you have a $400,000 roll and are playing 300/600 for $700/hr) is greater than your actual bankroll, then there are no odds that can make it worthwhile. this doesn't really make sense to me so someone point out my flaw please.

[shant]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly untrue. If X were 1 billion, you would take the gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if I only get one time to try this and it's for my entire roll. I wouldn't. I guess everyone is smarter than me.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I thought of the number 374,992,114 and Gates picked that exact number out of a billion numbers, not only would I give him my entire bankroll, I'd probably blow him.

I picked 3.