Your ENTIRE bankroll on AA...do you do it?

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, doesn't have the bankroll necessary to analyze the situation from a general perspective. People above posted that anyone who wouldn't take this bet isn't a poker player, my point is most poker players with significant bankrolls would laugh at this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see what you are saying, and I agree totally. The error that some people make when evaluating a situation like this is that the utility of money (how useful it is) is tied directly to the amount, when obviously it isn't.

[SmileyEH]

Yes. I could easily get the 2k or so I'd need to restart. If I lost I would probably cry though.

-SmileyEH

[Alpha13]

[ QUOTE ]

How about this for a real risk of ruin, not a hypothetical one where you might be able to get staked, etc: You have AsAc on a board of AhAd10d Your opponent holds Jd2h, and his cards have been exposed. He moves all in for 250 million dollars, but you don't have it. You can call him, but the guaranty that you must put up is your life. If you win the hand, you win 250 million dollars. If you lose, you die. Do you call the bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like something Andy Beal would do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[boose_bagina]

[ QUOTE ]

If I can just call $10k my 'poker-bankroll' and the $10k I have in the bank is my 'non-poker funds' then I would probably take this bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you took the bet and busted, how much from the $10k in your bank would you contribute to your new bankroll?? and what limits would you start out on? If you have enough on the side to contribute to a new bankroll, that might be considered part of your existing bank roll...but this is getting way to technical and far-fetched [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Lestat]

Bottom line:

The less you have to lose, the more willing you should be to accept the wager. You won't find many people with a +500k net worth (be it in bankroll or any other assets), who are willing to accept a 15% risk of going completely bust. To do so would exceed any positive debanair risk taking qaulities and enter the realm of sheer stupidity.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't it be any suited connector that doesn't make a straight with an ace? 98s, 87s, 76s?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be a suited connector that makes the most straights and beats AA with all of them even if AA has also made a straight => 56s (reason: for boards with 2,3,4,5 + the fact that your 5 takes away one 5 for the AAs possible straights)

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Note: it also depends on what your definition of 'bankroll' is. Even if I lost my entire "bankroll", I'd have sufficient other funds (even if i had to borrow) to start out again on the winning track...i don't know if that's cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
By my definition of bankroll, that's cheating. If I lose my whole poker balance, I can shift funds from other sources in a day or two. If I lose my whole poker bankroll, that means I am unwilling to put any more money into poker. My projected winnings from poker are much larger than my current bankroll, so I voted no.

Then again, I built this bankroll up starting with free money ($5 from a royal flush at a play money table), so it might be possible to rebuild from 0. With that in mind, I probably should have voted yes.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Its why recently while playing on pokerstars, I started to get really annoyed at all the people who use their children's pictures as their player avatars. 90 percent of them are losing players, and are losing money that they could be giving to their kids.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are overreacting. People have baby pictures as avatars because they have pictures of them on their computer. My picture isn't even of my son -- it's just some kid I won playing poker.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the correct Kelly Fraction is 70% of your bankroll here.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the amount the Kelly Criterion says is best, but the Kelly Criterion says you are better off betting up to 97.91% of your bankroll than walking away. There isn't much of a difference between betting 70% and 80% of your bankroll. <font color="white">This assumes you win 85%, and lose 15%, no ties.</font>

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
an unsuprising observation: "pro" players say no, recreational/semi-pro players say yes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are playing on a 500 BB bankroll and expect to make 3 BB/hour multitabling, you may expect to make 6000 BB in a full-time year. A 15% chance of losing that would cost about 900 BB, far greater than the 350 BB expected gain from putting everything on AA. If you would only play 200 hours instead of 2000 in that time, the extra cost of losing is only 90 BB in a year.

There is no intrinsic reason to choose a year as the period of play, and some recreational players play many more hours than that. Nevertheless, a pro may look at a bankroll and see not a lump sum of 500 BB, but a much more valuable stream of income.