Your Risk Level By Jared Lunsford (jdl22)

[StoneAge]

Ten people are playing 1-2 limit hold'em, one player is perfectly risk neutral and playing very profitably, one is risk loving and playing profitably, one is risk averse and playing profitably, the other seven are a mixture of risk loving and risk averse playing unprofitably.

We switch the game to 1-2 no limit with the assumption that everyone stays at the same level of risk loving/adverseness and that their relative skill level at limit and no limit is the same. If I understand you right this would mean that the risk averse/loving player's profitablility would go down and the risk neutral player's profitablility would necessarily have to increase.

So if you are a risk neutral profitable player, equally skilled at no limit and limit, no limit is more profitable(assuming the limit and no limit game are just as soft).

Am I overlooking/oversimplifiying?

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]


So if you are a risk neutral profitable player, equally skilled at no limit and limit, no limit is more profitable(assuming the limit and no limit game are just as soft).

[/ QUOTE ]

This along with what you said above is correct. The reason it is correct is that the other players, whether they play well or poorly will be more prone to mistakes in big bet if they are not risk neutral. I should have mentioned this in the article, I didn't think to because I was focused on the RA/RL players.

Thank you for the insightful comment.