It could also work the other way - a player who finds his bankroll slipping away could drop cover and push out his max bets where he may have been reluctant before. He may also wong more aggressively. That would be the more rational response. In the real world, though, there is probably a correlation between the willingness to play underfunded and a lack of skill and discipline. If we exclude psychology from the equation, I agree that the 100 under-bankrolled players would still give up EV to the well-funded players by wonging themselves out of positive shoes by busting out or being unable to double down or split hands in their last round of play. The penalty would probably depend on how under-bankrolled they were.

If I understood correctly, jblaze's point was that casinos shouldn't sweat a demonstrably skilled player because he may be under-funded and therefore would have no edge. I don't think that is correct although that opinion often comes up on forums. In the same game, a skilled player retains his edge no matter what ROR he is playing with. He may go broke eventually if he is under-bankrolled but he is still playing with an edge until he tosses out his last chip.

> Generally agree with this and the rest of the post.
> However it does make a difference to the casino how
> well you are funded because it can affect your edge;
> not just your RoR. Most underfunded players will not
> stick to the game plan when their bankroll dips. They
> will delay ramping up or reduce spread. If they make a
> max bet and get a slew of eights and DAS
> opportunities; they may shy away from making several
> max bets in one round. Some players will be down to
> few chips and simply be unable to bet or play
> correctly.

> So if you take 100 underfunded players; overall there
> edge is likely to be less than 100 adequately funded
> players.