Why don't successful players with large bankrolls have 100% of themselves in the main?

[There Is A Light]

Jerry Yang had 200% of himself, he won $16million.

[vetiver]

no right answer, all a matter of risk tolerance, but i imagine most people overestimate their chance of success in a 6k person field.

[TheBestInNAlb4lb]

Originally Posted by Billy Bibbit

People laughed at me last time I said this but IMO "I could still play my normal games if I lost 10K" makes as much sense as "I'm going to call a 5-way all-in with 72o because I could win a huge pot." It's always going to be long-run -EV to play a tourney with 10% of your roll, even if it doesn't make you underrolled for your current games it still decreases your ability to take more intelligent, lower-variance shots in the future.

I think this would be a better analogy: you have a 100k, and you get offered a coinflip, if you win you get 15k, if you lose you pay 10k. I'd personally have 200% of myself in this scenario if I could (unless I have a set-for-life roll of ~10 million post-tax, but with a 1 million roll I'd flip 100k vs 150k all day)

How is playing with 10% of your roll "always long-run -EV"? If you're better than the field, it's always +EV, just a high risk of going bust.

I played my first Main with a 30k roll. I think the worst for me so far was playing a 15k with a 30k roll (it was soft and juicy though). Pretty sure if I had a negative net worth, I would decline a 50% freeroll in the Main (assuming I can get a 10k loan of course).

I am by no means saying this crazy monkey shot taking is the right thing to do, but if you have a relatively steady income through a cash game you're crushing, and you have a 100-200k roll, there's nothing wrong with playing an excellent 10k once in a blue moon if you think you have a fairly good edge.

[ACgaming]

Originally Posted by TheBestInNAlb4lb

I think this would be a better analogy: you have a 100k, and you get offered a coinflip, if you win you get 15k, if you lose you pay 10k. I'd personally have 200% of myself in this scenario if I could (unless I have a set-for-life roll of ~10 million post-tax, but with a 1 million roll I'd flip 100k vs 150k all day)

How is playing with 10% of your roll "always long-run -EV"? If you're better than the field, it's always +EV, just a high risk of going bust.

I played my first Main with a 30k roll. I think the worst for me so far was playing a 15k with a 30k roll (it was soft and juicy though). Pretty sure if I had a negative net worth, I would decline a 50% freeroll in the Main (assuming I can get a 10k loan of course).

I am by no means saying this crazy monkey shot taking is the right thing to do, but if you have a relatively steady income through a cash game you're crushing, and you have a 100-200k roll, there's nothing wrong with playing an excellent 10k once in a blue moon if you think you have a fairly good edge.

LOL WTFFFFFFFFFF

you have better things to do with your time with a negative net worth?

[Billy Bibbit]

Originally Posted by TheBestInNAlb4lb

How is playing with 10% of your roll "always long-run -EV"? If you're better than the field, it's always +EV, just a high risk of going bust.

Because when you go bust you also lose the future expectation of all the profitable games you could have played in if you hadn't gone bust.

[GAWA9]

Billy Bibbit

[Chuck Bass]

Billy Bibbit is in my top 10 favourite posters ever

[CBorders]

Originally Posted by TheBestInNAlb4lb

I think this would be a better analogy: you have a 100k, and you get offered a coinflip, if you win you get 15k, if you lose you pay 10k. I'd personally have 200% of myself in this scenario if I could (unless I have a set-for-life roll of ~10 million post-tax, but with a 1 million roll I'd flip 100k vs 150k all day)

If you play around with a flip generator you'll see that your 100k flip proposition is a pretty risky move for someone working with only a million dollars.

[TheBestInNAlb4lb]

Originally Posted by Billy Bibbit

Because when you go bust you also lose the future expectation of all the profitable games you could have played in if you hadn't gone bust.

I don't think the "negative EV" is the right term (I could be wrong, I don't know statistics/graphs/etc). Maybe it's not "optimal EV", but it's still "positive". If you flip your entire roll as a 51/49 fav, yes you're going broke half the time, but you're still earning Sklansky dollars, no?

Also, when you win, it will allow you to play bigger and possibly better games.

[TheBestInNAlb4lb]

Originally Posted by CBorders

If you play around with a flip generator you'll see that your 100k flip proposition is a pretty risky move for someone working with only a million dollars.

Of course flipping coins with 10 bets is risky. There's a Russian saying that goes "One who fears wolves can't go to the forest", which was later changed to "One who fears teeth can't catch head". No risk = no reward.

[PenelopeCruz]

Originally Posted by Billy Bibbit

People laughed at me last time I said this but IMO "I could still play my normal games if I lost 10K" makes as much sense as "I'm going to call a 5-way all-in with 72o because I could win a huge pot." It's always going to be long-run -EV to play a tourney with 10% of your roll, even if it doesn't make you underrolled for your current games it still decreases your ability to take more intelligent, lower-variance shots in the future.

lol sorry but that is a terrible comparison. If a guy has a 100k roll and plays 5/10-10/20 live and MSNL online losing 10k in the main isn't going to increase his ROR in any significant way. I mean obviously the fact that you can mark up the action you sell makes it slightly worse but you're still gonna be giving up a fair amount of EV by doing so.

[Squee451]

Umm so I'm a pretty successful MTT player I still have an ok roll. Realistically I think I'll cash the main event about 1/4-1/3 of the time. Because it's such a great structured event and payouts are so high, you can charge absurd markup though. I sold action at 1.5 markup which means to get 50% of myself in the main event would cost me 2500 as opposed to 10k. This is going to double my ROI, if I played the main on my own roll itd be a big shot and my ROI would be 50% in a very high variance event. Financially selling action at an absurd markup makes great sense, taking 100% of yourself with 200-500k does not.

[NeverScaredB]

So you're knowingly (or guessingly, I guess, since how can you know something like this) selling action to investors at a 0% ROI for them?

[Squee451]

Originally Posted by NeverScaredB

So you're knowingly (or guessingly, I guess, since how can you know something like this) selling action to investors at a 0% ROI for them?

Oh I actually estimate my roi at something like 100-200% in the main, that being said, I didnt re-read my post. What I meant to write was that if I didn't sell action my roi would be 50% of what it would be vs selling my action at 1.5 and keeping 50% of myself. I should have written 1/2 instead of 50%.

Example, I cash for 30k in main, I have 100% of myself at 10k roi = 300%, with 50% of myself I cash for 30k in the main, I get 15k and paid 2500 for it roi=600%. I really hope my true ROI in the main is over 50%, I still think my investor's ROI is going to be high.

[NeverScaredB]

I could freeroll 20% of myself in the main event and my ROI would be infinity.