[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that if somebody walked into my office right now and asked me if I would like to flip a coin and get paid $11 if I win while losing $10 if I lose, I would decline the offer. I would also not take this gamble for 1/10th the stakes.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe the situation, then that is either a mistake, or you are not an advantage gambler.

I see that most of your recent strategy posts are in the microlimits forum, so perhaps for you, risking $10 to win $11 still looks pretty risky. However, you also have posts in the small stakes short-handed forum. I'm not familiar with that forum, but normally small stakes is at least $2-$4, 4 BB/100 would be an amazing win rate, and 20 BB/100 would be slightly high for a standard deviation. Playing a single orbit of 6-handed $2-$4 with these stats has an EV of about $1 with a SD of about $20, which is a lot like betting $20 to win $22.

Even if you are not ordinarily bankrolled to risk $10 to win $11, you first receive about $475 for free. That should give you a large enough bankroll to take that risk, even if you are quite conservative in managing your bankroll. Not being willing to wager $1 to win $1.10 on a $475+ bankroll is ridiculous for an advantage gambler. The odds against ruin are astronomical.

Do you really think avoiding betting $10 to win $11 (or even $1 to win $1.10!) is a reflection of your preferences on the outcomes, or is it an irrational desire to say that you don't gamble, or is it that you don't appreciate the difference between $11 and $10, but do understand the value of the much riskier activity of playing winning poker?

People who are not advantage gamblers do all sorts of nonsensical crap because it makes them feel better. They make sucker bets at casinos, claim mechanical devices have memories or respect hunches, cold-call with garbage, overcall on the river with bluff-catchers, etc. These don't have to make sense, since they are spending money on entertainment. Don't pretend these behaviors are rational for an advantage gambler, or that so many advantage gamblers hedged 100% was a reflection of their desire not to wager even $10 to win $11, even with at least $475 extra in their bankrolls.

As JPTT III said, "...doubtless the wager is something most [advantage gamblers] would take, in some amount or another. This is why OP can say with certainty that to hedge the whole amount is almost always wrong (although not knowing what amount would make it right). "

If you read a poker book, and the author explains that calling a river bet in a certain situation is a good gamble, as you are getting 20:1 odds and are only 15:1 against having the best hand, do you similarly say, "He can't say it's a good gamble for me. I'm risk averse. It's not right for me to call there?"