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

[jman220]

I would say that from my experience in live casinos, and the high rollers I've watched, it seems like those that cannot afford to lose what they are losing outnumber those who can by at least 3:1. But maybe I'm a bad judge of what a "rich" person looks like.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I would never sit with my entire bankroll. The thought is absurd. I was trying to answer a hypothetical question that was based on situation that would never exist (for me anyway). I do stand by my statement though. There is no way you can fold a hand where you know you are at least a 3/1 favorite based on poker considerations alone. A fold here would be solely based on other considerations. Do you who promote folding here seriously think you are 3 times as good as any opponent who would sit with you in a game such as this? Highly unlikely your edge could EVER be better even when averaged out over many hands. The edge is too big to pass up IMO. Do you who promote folding think you have a 3/1 edge over your opponents in your regular game? Highly unlikely. You win over the long term by pushing small edges, much less than 3/1. At what odds would you push your whole bankroll? 6/1? 10/1? 20/1? 99/1? I would really love to hear the answers to that one. Now I'm gonna go sit at the .01/.02 NL table with my whole bankroll. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone can successfully make the argument that if you are willing to sit with your entire bankroll in a heads up no limit match, you should fold AA to an all in. (You shouldn't be sitting with your entire bankroll in the first place). The hypothetical is more along the lines of, if someone gave you a 75-85 percent chance to double your bankroll or go bust, would you take it.

[Lestat]

I think the original question was posed wrong. Or at least it was made too easy to give a quick answer. A better question would've been: Would you gamble your entire net worth on one hand of AA?

I know there are a lot of younger students on here who's bankroll probably isn't much different than their net worth (I don't mean this as an insult in any way).

But for those of us who have had time to accumulate some wealth this modified question should at least give us pause.

Would I do it? No. I wouldn't consider even an 85% chance of doubling my net worth to be worth the 15% chance of losing everything. The change in lifestyle that would come from doubling my net worth, would be significantly less than the change if I lost everything.

Would I gamble my poker bankroll on it? In a heartbeat. But my poker bankroll is only a fraction of all my assets.

You pose a good question: How sure would I have to be in order to put it all on the line? Now that's tough. I'd say somewhere between 99% and 100%. If I could risk half or even 80% of my net worth I might be willing to take much less odds.

Good question and one I think everyone should think about. There are other things we do (and should), risk our money on. We should know our own risk tolerance.

[boose_bagina]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the original question was posed wrong. Or at least it was made too easy to give a quick answer. A better question would've been: Would you gamble your entire net worth on one hand of AA ?


[/ QUOTE ]
I thought about this, but realized it would essentially be a unanimous no (I hope) across the board. Simply stated, this thread was bound to venture into the net worth question.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the original question was posed wrong. Or at least it was made too easy to give a quick answer. A better question would've been: Would you gamble your entire net worth on one hand of AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean if I muck prematurely I can trade all my assets for all my credit card debt and loan balances?

Bums aren't broke, they're even!

[Reef]

that is a LOT of $. But:
1) I can get staked if I go bust
2) getting ~4.5 to 1 odds on a 1:1 bet? +EV
3) I have gamble in me

But I'd probably have to have someone else push the button. I definetaly couldn't watch.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
think you are 3 times as good as any opponent who would sit with you in a game such as this? Highly unlikely your edge could EVER be better even when averaged out over many hands.

[/ QUOTE ]



But it IS better when averaged out over many hands.

With proper bankroll considerations and playing WITHIN one's limits a winning player is almost guarantted to show a profit....just like a casino is almost guaranteed to profit by running a bunch of games that are just a 2-5% advantage.


If I have a 0.1% advantage over my opponents but continue to hammer away at them OVER and OVER within the limits of my bankroll than I will be almost guaranteed to show a profit (and eventually double) my bankroll in the long run.



I believe there is some sort of math behind playing craps with $2000 in your roll for $1 per bet.
If you are at a 1.5% disadvantage on each bet than the chances of you doubling your $2k roll is well over 1 in a million (or something like that) whereas the chances of the odds working out for you to eventually go broke is well over 99%.


The odds that the casino has over their players at the 'regular' -EV games is very much the same as the odds that a +EV poker-player has over his opponents.
A 1% advantage over a 20-hand or 200-hand trial for a +EV player works into a 99% chance of doubling your bankroll after a lengthy run.


These are the general principles we talk about all the time around here.

[ThePost]

Imagine offering a major Casino this bet. I can't see any casino risking their cash cow just because they have the advantage in a situation bet. Makes it easy to see why the actual pro's around here would say no.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed before, but for the people saying yes, would you do this: You are offered the choice between taking a gift of 50 million dollars, or a 75 percent chance of winning 250 million dollars. Which do you take?

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 ]

I call this 250 million/ death proposition. People make similar propositions daily but with MUCH less reward. I'll go rock climbing, there's a .00001% I die, but a 99.9999% chance I'll have a fun day. Maybe exact odds aren't right, but this kind of scenario (crossing a busy street, driving a car in a bad neighborhood, driving drunk, flying in a plane, swimming in a pool while it's raining/storming).

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has been discussed before, but for the people saying yes, would you do this: You are offered the choice between taking a gift of 50 million dollars, or a 75 percent chance of winning 250 million dollars. Which do you take?

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 ]

I call this 250 million/ death proposition. People make similar propositions daily but with MUCH less reward. I'll go rock climbing, there's a .00001% I die, but a 99.9999% chance I'll have a fun day. Maybe exact odds aren't right, but this kind of scenario (crossing a busy street, driving a car in a bad neighborhood, driving drunk, flying in a plane, swimming in a pool while it's raining/storming).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Where's your tolerance limit though? Would you call a 250 million/death bet with a 99 percent chance of winning? 95? 75? Where is the line? Just curious.