say you're a professional..

[JonTheFox]

I put this under "theory" cause it is a hypothetical, not a personal question. say you're playing for a living at a B&M casino and you have a good relationship with this casino - they give you a nice rakeback deal, you're familiar with the environment and people, etc.

Now say one day you "go into work" and because you're playing for a living, you are very careful with bankroll management and you play in the 20/40 regularly or sometimees 10/20 if the game is considerably softer than the 20/40. But you get there, and let's say the only game is a 40/80. You think you can beat it, at least marginally, but know that a bad run of cards and you might even become uncomfortable playing in your 20/40 game. You also don't want to just "not work" and the only other game going on is something like 4/8, which you know is too low to even be worth your working time.

so the question is, should you try playing in the 20/40 game? should you take the day off? should you look for another casino to play in? What if this kind of thing were to happen a couple days every week, should you begin looking for a new B&M spot?

How many BB would be enough where it's worth it to try playing in the game if the alternative is not "working" that day, and how many BB is too low for it to be a risky/dangerous/incorrect decision. Assume the player's winrate to be 1 bb per hour.

[heater]

I wouldn't play in a game for twice my normal stakes that I'm not sure I can beat under any circumstances, ever.

[schroedy]

I think that in addition to win rate, we need to know the standard deviation in order to answer your question.

Assuming a standard deviation in the high teens (like most of us have), I could easily lose 50 big bets in a session. (Empirical experience as well as mathematical computation confirms this in my case!) Personally, I have a pain threshold in the neighborhood of 50 big bets. After that I get convinced that I am not beating this game. So that is something of a stop loss (which I know will make people here scream in opposition).

So if my bankroll is 300x the big bet in my usual game, I could end up the night with "only" 200x the big bet in my usual game.

The reason that I put "only" in quotes is because in my experience many, many, many supposed professionals are playing around at 100x BR or even less. Note that if I am bankrolled only to 100x the big bet (for my usual game), I could quite easily be wiped out in just a few hours at the bigger game.

[retleftolc]

you're a professional.

[catlover]

In the situation you described, I would take a shot at the game. I would only risk 20BB or so. Seriously. I know the risk of ruin is enormous, even if you are a winning player. But the shot could also work out very nicely.

Basically, I believe a pro should occasionally take a shot at a higher game, and the situation you described is an ideal moment for it.

One other thing -- you should work on increasing your bankroll. This does not mean you panic if this particular shot fails. Rather, based on your description, I think you are working on too small a roll. One thing an adequate roll allows is for you to feel comfortable taking shots. It is clear to me that in this case, you are not totally comfortable with this particular shot, at least partly for bankroll reasons.

[catlover]

I thought I'd expand my thinking behind the above post a bit. When you are taking a shot at a higher game, you do not need to risk enough so that if you lose that much, you "know" you cannot beat the higher game. That's not the point. Rather, the point is to risk enough so that if you can beat the higher game, there is some chance the shot will work out -- especially if it turns out, as it sometimes does, that you can beat the higher game by a lot.

Let's look at two scenarios:
1) You are a better player than you think, and you can beat the 40/80 for 1BB per hour.

2) You are not very good and you can only beat the 40/80 for 0.2BB per hour.

Now in case $1, you really want to be in the 40! In case #2, you'd rather be in the 20.

The good news: your small shot is much more likely to work out in case #1 than it is in case #2! I realize that in case #1 it will still probably fail, but it will work around 1/3 to 1/4 of the time or so. This is a big deal. By risking 20BB, you have a 1/3 to 1/4 chance of doubling your income.

On the other hand, in scenario #2, your shot is almost certain to fail. But that's OK, because you'd rather be in the 20 anyway.

So small shots have the wonderful property that they have a significant (though still less than 50%) chance of working out if you really want to be in that bigger game, but they almost never work out if you don't.

Don't let that "less than 50%" aspect faze you. Sometime in the future you will see a reason to take another small shot. If each small shot is individually less than 50% likely to work out, cumulatively they can still have a great chance of working, if you belong in a higher game. And that's exactly what you want to find out.

Not only that -- suppose there are two different higher games -- one that you can beat by 1BB per hour, and another you only beat by 0.7. Well, obviously you'd rather be in the one you beat by 1. Now taking small shots at each is no guarantee this will happen. But it does stack the odds in your favour a little.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming a standard deviation in the high teens (like most of us have), I could easily lose 50 big bets in a session. (Empirical experience as well as mathematical computation confirms this in my case!)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've played somewhere between 1000 and 2000 hours of live poker in my life and can only remember one session where I lost 50 BBs and that was in a shorthanded game (20/40, mostly four-handed). A standard deviation in the high teens? Where/ what are you playing that you are experiencing those sorts of fluctuations? I think my s.d. at 20/40 was something like $380/hr (going from memory, may be completely wrong). If you are having insane swings, I think it is usually a sign of some leaks, particularly not being good at making reads (at the 20/40 or 40/80 level, most people are extremely readable allowing you to avoid a lot of bad situations).

And regardless, there is nothing obligating you to keep sitting in the game once you have lost 25 bets or so.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
say you're playing for a living at a B&M casino and you have a good relationship with this casino - they give you a nice rakeback deal

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Yes, this is definitely hypothetical. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But you get there, and let's say the only game is a 40/80. You think you can beat it, at least marginally, but know that a bad run of cards and you might even become uncomfortable playing in your 20/40 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't play. If a bad run will take that much into your roll to cause this scenario, you don't risk it. You only risk that which won't have any effect on your normal/current limit.

[ QUOTE ]
What if this kind of thing were to happen a couple days every week, should you begin looking for a new B&M spot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, if your weekly income dropped at your current
job, wouldn't you look for an alternative to start making up the difference.

You could look at it like, your normal limit is the 'job' the 'shot' limit is your hobby. Your hobby shouldn't cut into your job.


b

[PacketPuppy]

I tend to think many players like to take shots in bigger games but do yourself a favor and play within your bankroll. You will thank yourself later.

Brian

[pzhon]

If you are using the Kelly Criterion or a fractional Kelly system, and you win the same amount at each level, then playing for twice the optimal stakes is roughly equivalent to not playing. You should be indifferent to playing or not.

If you have been playing $20-$40 for a while as a winning player, you are probably overbankrolled. In that case, you should prefer to play in a $40-$80 game that is just as soft as your usual game over not playing (ignoring the value to you of taking the day off). This is complicated by the adjustments you might make to your win rate due to your expenses.

If the $40-$80 game is tougher than your usual $20-$40 game, you might prefer to sell more than 50% of your action. In that case, playing is worse than not playing.