Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_on_the_spot
Very incorrect. Playing to 'not lose' is generally one of the fundamental flaws awful players have.
Generally correct, though it is dependent on your ability to replenish said $1000 away from the table. But considering that the above quote was meant to be a supporting argument for the 1st quote, there are plenty of other situations that would contradict the 1st quote, most of which begin with being properly rolled for the game you're playing
You don't seem to understand the concept of risk of ruin. If you have no capital, you can't play poker and you can't win money, so your winrate is meaningless. And I'll try to make this simple for you:
In my example, queens are roughly a 53/47 favorite against AK, so your call will net you around +$60. However, it's a high variance call because you are risking $1000 to win $60. You could easily lose 3 or 4 of these flips in a row. So even though you are making the correct play by calling from an EV standpoint you are making a serious error from a risk of ruin standpoint if your bankroll is only $2000.
Obviously, as I stated before if you can replenish your bankroll then your risk of ruin is essentially zero, so you can go ahead and maximize your winrate. But for the average joe, his risk of ruin is not zero. And I'm not sure why you think trying to avoid the risk of ruin makes someone an awful play poker player.
As for being properly rolled for their game, most people aren't. A 10 BB/100 ($10/hr in 2/3) winner with a standard deviation of 100 needs a bankroll of 1498 BB to reduce his risk of ruin to 5%. And most people aren't anywhere close to being 10 BB/100 winners, despite some of the winrates being posted in here.