Value of Your Roll/Risk Aversion

[ 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.

[Mr_J]

"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)?"

Assuming there's no rake and it's a fair game, I'd bet 7% of my bankroll.

I wouldn't risk my whole BR on any hand, that'd be overbetting. Your whole BR is actually all the money you can afford to bet, whether it's future or present. If it's only my current BR then ATs+, AJ+, 77+.

[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.

[vexvelour]

If the person has no value for money AND he's about to leave, I doubt they're picking their spots carefully.