How Risk Averse Are You?

Lambert180

Was just having a discussion with a mate....

How much of your roll (or just £££ in your bank) would you risk if you could sit down at a HU cash table and know that the very first hand you will GII pre and it will be AA v KK?

Would you up the ante if you were allowed to do it twice in a row so you'd know you'd have to be vvv unlucky to not at least break even (minus rake)?

Would you punt more if it was AA v A7o instead of AA v KK?

Feel free to say a % of your roll if you don't feel comfortable publicly posting your roll.

==============================

Personally I think I'd deffo be happy punting £2k on it minimum

F_Ivanovic

What's £2k as a percentage of your roll? Or would you rather not say? I think it's easier if everyone just says a % of their roll!!

I'd probably say somewhere between 10% and 20% for AA vs KK. Maybe 15%. If I could do it twice in a row I dunno if I would up the ante much just because I'd be risking an even bigger % of my roll. 

AA vs A7o then I would probably be willing to risk between 20 and 25%. 

3 years ago I'd have probably said 30% and 50% respecitvely!

DOHHHHHHH

All my pocket rolls.

hhyftrftdr

100%.

Phantom66

Depending on who made the offer, in what circumstances and what controls were in place to ensure fairness...

Anything between 0 and 100% - possibly even more if I could get backers!

e.g. If it was a prop bet from a rolled pro I would assume they have a hidden edge, some shady character I had never met assume its a scam, Dynamo on a street with TV cameras - you just know its a trick then 0% on all those fronts (well maybe 10% to dynamo because I like him and I could get on TV and if for TV I would assume you get your money back after.

If I could be led to believe it is legit and no opportunity for cards to be tampered with/force dealt then 100%.

Risk theory isnt just about odds and reward its about the value balance of both the consequence and likelihood of failure versus the consequence and likelihood of success.

My roll is very small and I could live with going bust so the consequences of failure are small.

Would I participate in russian rouletter with 1 loaded chamber out of six for a £million - no way the consequences of failure are far too severe!

alex1229

getting 4/1 on an even money shot.

Obveously im shipping it all in, every single penny i have to my name.

Lets doo thissssssssssss

bbMike

In Response to Re: How Risk Averse Are You?:

Depending on who made the offer, in what circumstances and what controls were in place to ensure fairness... Anything between 0 and 100% - possibly even more if I could get backers! e.g. If it was a prop bet from a rolled pro I would assume they have a hidden edge, some shady character I had never met assume its a scam, Dynamo on a street with TV cameras - you just know its a trick then 0% on all those fronts (well maybe 10% to dynamo because I like him and I could get on TV and if for TV I would assume you get your money back after. If I could be led to believe it is legit and no opportunity for cards to be tampered with/force dealt then 100%. Risk theory isnt just about odds and reward its about the value balance of both the consequence and likelihood of failure versus the consequence and likelihood of success. My roll is very small and I could live with going bust so the consequences of failure are small. Would I participate in russian rouletter with 1 loaded chamber out of six for a £million - no way the consequences of failure are far too severe!
Posted by Phantom66

Well, at least you'd not know you'd lost.

Sir-Gary

Putting it all in is poor bankroll management. The problem is poker players are striving for only the smallest margins, so when they see 4-1 they get all excited and think it is nearly certain. It is not nearly certain, it is not even close to being certain. If you put all your roll in and it loses, then you cannot play anymore you have no roll left. you should never put in a significant amount of your roll at one time, as variance will take your roll very quickly. The other question is what precisely is your roll, not in £'s but in is it steadily funded. If you put £100 in every month and lose it  (£3 a day for a hobby is not that bad). Then to lose it all in one go is not then end of the world. If on the other hand you have £20,000 in your account, but are unemployed with no income other than poker, and debts of £15,000 then to lose it is a disaster.

Macacgirl1

I wouldn't see the fun in it, but I'd have a go with 50%, no bother.
But, if I really felt like splashing out and taking a gamble, I'd make it a tenner.

Enut

It depends on your definition of bankroll.

I would quite happily put 100% of my Sky bankroll on it and even load a few thousand more up for a guaranteed advantage like AA v KK AIP. However my Sky bankroll and my poker bankroll in general is a very small percentage of my available funds. If I lost it would not have any great effect other than making me post in BBV about how badly I run.  

ACEGOONER

In Response to Re: How Risk Averse Are You?:

It depends on your definition of bankroll. I would quite happily put 100% of my Sky bankroll on it and even load a few thousand more up for a guaranteed advantage like AA v KK AIP. However my Sky bankroll and my poker bankroll in general is a very small percentage of my available funds. If I lost it would not have any great effect other than making me post in BBV about how badly I run.  
Posted by Enut

IFA brag ftw . It makes for a more stressful poker experience if your roll is a high proportion of life roll. 

rancid

21.5% and 34%

would depend if we had the suits covered

ShaunyT

75%. SHIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPP IIIIIIIIITTTTTTT.

Basically using the logic Sir_Gary stated