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

[SinCityGuy]

No. My risk of ruin would be somewhere between 15% to 25%, which is a bit too high for me. I prefer to keep it less than 1%.

[PITTM]

has it taken everyone this long to realize that this question has no definite answer because of situations outside ones bankroll? personally i would put up my entire 1500 dollar bankroll with AA at the drop of a hat. i have a job that consistantly pays me and i have other money in reserve. however, for many of the players on here, if they lose their whole bankroll they have NOTHING. thus making it a winning proposition for me and a poor bet for many of the pros on this board. many people are forgetting that economics often involves substitution preferences that cannot be so easily quantified.

rj

[qsdaddy]

I have been playing poker as my only source of income for 47 weeks, I have a net win of 162K. In that time I've bought a house and everything that goes with a new house. So I would say my liquid poker br is 80K in which I would eagerly risk 70K. If I lost I would still play in my 15-30 thru 30-60 shorthanded games. Since I've never had a month of less than 5.2K profit, I think I would be fine.

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing poker as my only source of income for 47 weeks, I have a net win of 162K. In that time I've bought a house and everything that goes with a new house. So I would say my liquid poker br is 80K in which I would eagerly risk 70K. If I lost I would still play in my 15-30 thru 30-60 shorthanded games. Since I've never had a month of less than 5.2K profit, I think I would be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not find a 2/4 or 3/6 "fish" where you think your odds of doubling before busting are about 4-1 and play them HU with the 70k? Why are you limiting yourself to 30/60 with an 80k roll where there are most certainly 4-1 shots on your doubling your money available at higher stakes?

As I posted earlier, there seems to be real disconnect between the size of the banrolls that people keep for their play (in relative BB's) and the risk levels they claim they'd so eagerly embrace (as illustrated with this hypothetical AA proposition). The two philosophies just don't jive IMO.

Nigel

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
No. My risk of ruin would be somewhere between 15% to 25%, which is a bit too high for me. I prefer to keep it less than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bit unfair. Your normal RoR is ~ 1% but your expectation is X BBs/next hand, whereas here your RoR is 15-20 times higher but your expectation if (1-RoR)*(bankroll). So really, you're saying your RoR goes up faster than your willingness several orders of magnitude more EV on your next decision.

[sammy_g]

I was one of the first people to respond to this thread, and I said, "hell yeah." I stand by that. I don't have a small bankroll, either. I have enough to comfortably play 30/60.

The funny thing is I always considered myself risk-adverse, and I've been very conservative about managing my bankroll and moving up limits. In fact, I think in general that has stunted my poker growth and cost me money in the long run.

The answer seems to hinge on how you define "bankroll." I don't define bankroll as my entire net worth. Also, if I lose my bankroll, I can still play poker. I have assets outside of my poker bankroll that I can draw on.

Even if for some reason I couldn't redeposit from my own savings, I could borrow from a friend and rebuild. Of course, I am not a pro. I have income outside of poker. If I were a pro, however, I would still do it if I knew someone would stake me if I lost.

Of course, I could double my money with less risk, but I would have to play for a long time to do it! It would require a lot of work. Why not let it ride on one hand when you are a more than a 4:1 favorite? That is a great bet, and I would not be ruined if I lost.

So, yeah, "hell yeah" is my answer.

[PokerBob]

No. My bankroll is essential to my livlihood. Part of being a good player is making smart gambles. This is not a smart one.

[zaphod]

Clearly the correct answer here is, as always in poker:
It depends.

It depends on the following:
-How valuable is it for you to double your bankroll.
-How bad will it be for you to loose your bankroll.

-What is your chances for winning this bet. If your opponent holds the other acces, i think most people would say that this is clearly a bad bet(especially if you have to pay rake). If you think the dealer may be helping the other player it is also a bad bet.


How would it influence your future poker life if you did not take this bet? What if your favorite fish said he would never play you again if you did not take this bet?

[evil_twin]

I'm stunned by some of the answers to this simple question.

Those of us who make a living from playing poker will answer NO without giving it much thought. Why subject our entire livelyhood to such a massive short term fluctuation? It's madness.

Those of you answering yes, probably have a limited bankroll and/or don't rely on making cash from poker. Those of you who answered yes and are professional players are fools.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
Those of you who answered yes and are professional players are fools.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet faced with this prop bet, many of the poker names you know would jump at this.

Face it, poker is gambling. This bet is a gambler's dream.