No good (pro) investor risks 10% on a single investment if they have any significant amount, as that would be foolish. More like 1/200, if it's a directional trade they can scale up if they have an hedge on a different direction in the same asset class. Those who use leverage to get to a bigger percentage is not on their full portfolio, they are a small part of a strategy in a bigger portfolio of investments. And many times that gives catastrophic results, see LTCM.

In the short term both are gambling. Technically in the long term both are still gambling, but both can be done in such a way that you're more likely to die in any given year than lose money. In that case most people don't care if it's gambling or not, it's safe enough.

Poker is gambling. Investing is gambling. Is this your "aha, gotcha" by falsely interpreting I said that the gamble aspect in investing has the same root cause as poker? They just both have uncertainty and both involve betting money, period. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not really sure what your problem is.

ITT, I learned that Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, Carl Icahn, and David Tepper are not good investors.

Sure, but an investment can be long term or short term. A single hand of poker can only be short term.

The definition of gambling is loose enough that our opinions can probably vary on this. I don't consider an activity that is guaranteed to produce a profit, to be gambling.

But no investment is guaranteed to produce a profit, no matter how long term. Neither are a combination of investments, and while reducing the risk significantly you cannot guarantee a profit. Therefor it is gambling.

We're not in disagreement, the chance of losing money in a +ev investment over the long term is really really insignificant and no sane person would be worried about taking that small risk. You probably need to reduce the return dramatically though, so question is if reducing your risk to "guaranteed profit" is actually the way you should invest is arguable, but yes you take on as little risk as you like.

Why is the definition loose enough though?

If you have a significant edge in poker or investing you are guaranteed to make a profit in the long term, which is why I consider neither to be gambling, although one can gamble in either.

Every time that I play.

all of it

200%

Can I use two bullets for 1 billion?

Around 25% most probably

Win or lose. Tell my wife it was 2.5%

In truth, all investments are gambling. If there was one perfect investment that was guaranteed to make money then everybody would be doing it. And that is not the case, as we all know. I've invested in several small businesses, such as poolrooms, sports bars, pizza joints and a couple of others. When set up properly and run well you can make a decent living from such a business and I've been fortunate to have done so, even though I've made some mistakes (and took my lumps) along the way.

I've also invested in real estate, both residential and commercial. Those investments have worked out better in the long run and provide me with a nice income now. Enough to enjoy my hobby of playing poker. One caveat - do your due diligence before making any investment!

I've also gambled at sports, poker and pool almost my entirely life, with mixed results. If I had to make my living at any one of them I doubt that I would have the financial security I now enjoy. Maybe I'm just not that skilled at those games. Most of the people I've met in life who tried to make their living purely at games of chance do not fare well in the long run. Take a look around and tell me how many poker players you know who are enjoying a good quality of life, and how many gain long term financial security from this pursuit.

I'm not knocking being a poker player. I'm just being a realist. I tried to make a living at pool when I was a young man and when I realized how futile it was I decided that owning a poolroom might be better way to go, and it was. At least for me it was.

Wouldn't you rather own a card room then just play in one? I know I would. If I learned anything in my years in the gambling world, it's that the "house" gets the money in the end.

But back to the original question. All of us have experienced bad beats, lots of them. We all have stories about the guys who hit the two outer on the river or runner-runner to knock us out. Why would I want to risk the security it took me a lifetime to build on the outcome of a turn of the cards. I might risk ten grand as a 4-1 favorite (and have) but that's all the sweat I need. Perhaps someone younger than me who is trying to build an nest egg would be more willing to put it at risk, and there isn't anything wrong with that when you are still young enough to rebuild from a big loss.

From my experience on here, i'm sure many will find one reason or another to fault me, but that's okay. I can handle criticism.

all of it?

If i lost id just get a loan at cheapest possible rate and get back to grinding.

80% of it and side bet a tourist the other 20% with him giving me 5 to 1 that I lose.

Depends on edge size google kelly criterion etc, obviously if you have ten million dollars and can put 10% or 1m on something at 100-1 odds it would be utterly ******ed not to and obviously the less money you have the more stupid it is not to take the one off for the maximum amount that won't cripple your lifestyle if you get 20%ered.

Obviously no one's supposed to be putting 10% of their net worth on 3% edges, but on an 80/20 there's no dollar amount you could have high or low where the correct amount to risk is under 10% short of 'I have exactly 100k and if I don't pay the mafia exactly 100k tomorrow they'll have me killed' or whatever

I think the correct answer varies on net worth, for the bulk of the people posting here with a 5 or 6 figure net worth (i'm included in that category) if this is a once in a lifetime thing and you're not at retirement age with exactly barely the amount you need the correct answer is probably something like 50-60% of net worth, I think i'd go somewhere in that range on a one off gamble with no future opportunity for it to pop up again. Yes, a loss would set me back a couple years, but a win which happens 4 in 5 times moves me a couple years closer to financial independence and at 33 that's fine risk wise on an 80%er

If I was single and had no one else depending on my net worth I like to think I would probably fire more like 75% or so, granted I currently have reasonably high earning potential in my field and could probably grind back from a 75% hit within a few years. In all seriousness given my actual net worth i'd definitely consider going close to all-in right now as a win would result in me buying a quality lifestyle worthy house in cash and permanently removing rent as an expense from my life with no mortgage which is pretty close to resulting in financial freedom and a loss simply results in a couple lost years of grinding to get back to where I am today

Again a lot of it depends on age - if i'm 63 or whatever and comfortably have enough money to last the rest of my life by a narrow margin, the number's going to be lower - that said if I have more than I need to last the rest of my life, a decent chunk of the excess is going on the 80/20. For anyone in their 20s or 30s, it's a no brainer to max it for whatever doesn't completely cripple you financially the 1 in 5 times you lose.

Needs more

What reads do we have on V?

It only has a risk of failure if you bet all your money on it

We're getting a bit off topic now, but I can't let this one slide, people say it all the time but it's complete bull****.

It would be pretty awesome if I could magically assume ownership of Commerce and have all that rake drop into my pockets. Sadly, this is not how business works.

There are tons of people who would probably have a much higher ROI playing poker than running a poker room. In fact I expect a huge % of the population--a huge % of winning poker players, even-- has an expected ROI of near -100% from running a business. It's all dependent on skill set.

kelly criterion is completely irrelevant for this question btw
im gonna go with 20%

How much would you risk on one spin of a 5-shooter pistol with a single bullet in it? It's the same 80/20 math. (i.e. Russian Roulette)

It's not the amount of the win that determines behavioral psychology, it's the amount or gravity of the loss. In other words, the pain of losing is greater than the thrill of winning.

nice! i was thinking 60-65%. pretty happy with that presumption then.

Risk of failure refers to losing all your investment, which is an outcome with a 20% probability. Investments in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities and the like don't nearly that often (a notable exception being options).

I'm all swapped out with everybody at the table so the inbred collusion is making my brain implode.

It's pretty obvious that you have no clue "how business works." You've probably never owned a business and never will. Some time ago I had a chance to buy one point in the Bicycle Casino for $84,000. Unfortunately the deal didn't work out and another group obtained control of the property. Do you have any idea how valuable that 1% would have been? I think not!

I seriously doubt there are any poker players doing as well long term as the people who control the largest poker rooms in the country. Some of the best players may have a big year or two, but if you ask them would they trade their bankroll for an ownership interest in the Commerce (your choice here) I would bet they would do it in a heartbeat. Otherwise they are damn fools!