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

[xniNja]

a6?

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
How much of a favorite do you have to be to risk your bankroll? 10 to 1, more?

[/ QUOTE ]


it is completely different for everyone

I've played enough acey deucey that I know tragedies happen and you're [censored] if you bank on the "sure thing" like AA. people think "I can afford to lose $300 on this" but they realized they weren't thinking so well when an A falls and they owe $900

yesterday I was clearing a blackjack bonus and had lost the amount. I had bet $25 but had $7 in the account. I had two aces against a ten. I deposited $50 and split them and nailed a J and a Q. I assume this is a very profitable situation compared to hitting a soft 12. if I had bet $5000 on the hand, I don't know that I would've split them.

[primetime32]

I wonder if the question should be broken up between players that play for a living (poker main source of income) and those that play poker for the entertainment value.

I play for the entertainment value. Thankfully, i have made enough to help make life a little easier, but if i lost my bankroll tomorrow it wont impact my life (other than being really depressed about wasting away 2 years).

I just don't see the point of working on building a bankroll for a year or 2 or more and then risking it all on a gamble.

I would probably risk about 20 percent of my bankroll.

[David]

A9o when the 9 is the same suit as one of the opponents A's?

[xniNja]

don't a6-9o make the same unlikely straight and same other trip suckout. I would guess they're all about the same?

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, for bonus points, what is the worst hand you can hold against pocket aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

K2 with the two suits being the same as the suits of the aces.

[SaintAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Teddy,

If you wouldn't keep doing it over and over, I assume it's because there comes a point at which your bankroll gets large enough that you are not willing to risk it (which is why some people are answering no, their bankroll is already too large to risk on one shot).

If it's not because it has become too large, then why would you ever stop taking the wager? I know it wouldn't be because after doubling up 4 times in a row, that you's be "due" to miss one... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Nigel

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a classic Martingale pattern. The reason that system doesn't work in a casino is because everyone will eventually go broke. That's why the question here is a little flawed.

So I qualified my answer a bit: as a one-off proposition, i'd do it.

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 ]

Martingale is a series of slightly -EV bets.
This is a series of very +EV bets.

[Derek in NYC]

[ QUOTE ]
if I lost my roll I'd be back at .5/1 making minimum wage. so if I lose I lose 250-300 an hour for a looooooooooong time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly correct. You can calculate the EV of this proposition bet through the following formula. (The formula assumes you are playing a dominated pair, and that if you win, you get a bigger bankroll, but you dont step up into a higher earning game. It also assumes that if you lose, you will need to rebuild, and that you will therefore suffer an opportunity cost from not playing your normal game):

EV = (80% x BRtotal) - (20% x BRtotal) - (20% x opportunity cost of going bust)

The problem with the people saying it is a clear yes, is that they are putting no value on the opportunity cost you will suffer if you go broke.

[viennagreen]

every time i see one of those baby pictures, i'll be laughing about this.

[AAAA]

i think it was the Ozzie who owned some huge communication network. The Texan thought he was tough stuff with his hundred million and the guy, who can't stand people who are full of themselves offered to flip him for it, and meant it. He could actually afford to lose $100,000,000 and not miss it, because he earns so much so fast that it wouldn't bother him, but the Texan, couldn't afford to lose it all.

No one has mentioned Utility Theory at all so far in this thread. I thought that was in some of the Sklansky/Malmuth books or was that Poker Essays? They talked about the fact that the fun you have winning isn't as good as the pain you would have losing.

Therefore the theory says you should not make that bet if it were really your whole bankroll.

Pardon me if someone says this later in the thread, but my bankroll for 1020 is in the 1000BB+ category, and even though poker playing isn't my only source of income, I wouldn't consider putting it all on the line for one bet.

Why should I? I have enough money, and the extra wouldn't make my life that much better.

This isn't even considering the possibility of a cooler deck. Did I cut the cards? Did I leave the room when the cards were shuffled?