|
|
 Originally Posted by daviddem
I'd rather miss value here and there than have to play 1000+ extra hands to recover a lost buy-in.
this idea is so fundamentally flawed imo.
there are plays which are -EV, there are plays which are +EV, and there are plays which are neutral EV. i know you know this.
you're using the term "missing value". i'm taking that to mean "missing out on a +EV betting opportunity". now, basically you seem to be saying "i decided not to take a +EV betting opportunity because if the money i invest making this bet is lost (which i know it will be some non-zero percent of the time) on this one particular occasion, it will take me x amount of hands to win it back" this is completely and utterly flawed imo, barring abnormal circumstances (one of these i can think of is playing under-rolled, but that's a different discussion). the goal of a poker player is to make betting decisions with the maximum EV they can. if you're sacrificing some EV "here and there" because you don't want to grind your $5 back, how far does this go? does the EV of your betting decisions have to be greater than a certain amount for you to make them? how much? how close to neutral EV do you allow yourself to go? you say your risk-aversion is due to two things: bankroll management, and volume. if you are deliberately sacrificing +EV bets because of bankroll considerations, i'd consider playing lower limits instead of playing a less profitable style at higher stakes. once you're adequately financially and psychologically rolled to start maximising your EV, move back up. as regards volume, i don't see how not being able to play regularly (and/or not wanting to) relates to wanting to deliberately play suboptimally.
ps, the above is a response to a comment you made about a poker hand, but is in no way a response to the hand itself. ie i am not saying i prefer any one possible action in the hand. at least not in this post.
pps, this is not intended as a personal attack, but my honest response to a comment you made. hopefully it was taken as such
|
Reply With Quote