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

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?

[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.)

[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]

[ 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.

[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]

[MrStretchie]

[ 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 ]

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]

[/ QUOTE ]

No you wouldn't. WTF?
You wouldn't risk it for a 999,999,999/1 billion chance of doubling? You're taking a far worse risk just playing poker..

[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]

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

[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.

[Derek in NYC]

There aren't too many responses yet, but interestingly, there seems to be a trifurcated (non normal) distribution: (1) those who require odds of 3-5x, those who require 10-12x, and those who require 20x (or likely would never take the bet or only take it with insane odds).

It would be an interesting followup to find out what types of players, backgrounds, etc. comprise these three discrete groups. Im not sure whether it is a socioeconomic variable, an age variable, a limit/skill variable, or what, that is driving this clustering.