Take Risk Off the Table to Stay Rational
Shrink your own stake so loss aversion cannot hijack the next decision
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 72%
Schrager profiles a volatile top poker player whose visible edge is patience — he folds around seven of every eight hands. The threat to that patience is loss aversion: because losses hurt far more than equivalent gains please, a player who is down doubles down and takes extra risk to avoid booking the loss, which is why people play too many hands. His answer is structural rather than emotional. He gets staked, so an outside investor holds a share of the winnings and only about ten thousand dollars of his own money is in any tournament. He also cuts side deals with an opponent in winner-take-all formats, agreeing to split a guaranteed portion of the purse so second place is not zero. Each move removes personal downside, and with less at stake he can stay rational and keep folding.
Origin
Extracted from Masters in Business — Allison Schrager's field research with professional poker players for An Economist Walks Into a Brothel.
Core principles
- 01Loss aversion makes you take risks when losing that you would never take when winning.
- 02Willpower alone rarely survives a large personal downside.
- 03Reducing how much of your own money is at stake reduces the bias's grip.
- 04Structural fixes beat emotional self-management under pressure.
- 05Patience is only affordable when a losing streak does not threaten you.
How to run it
- 1
Locate your loss-aversion trigger
Find the point in a losing run where your behaviour changes — more trades, looser hands, larger positions. That is the bias firing, not a read.
Pro tip Log the decision quality separately from the outcome so the pattern is visible.
- 2
Quantify your personal exposure per episode
Work out how much of your own money is actually at risk in a single tournament, trade or venture.
Watch out Reputational and career stakes count too, even when no cash is on the line.
- 3
Sell part of the upside to reduce the downside
Bring in a backer who funds part of the entry in exchange for a share of the winnings, so a bad run costs you far less.
Pro tip Choose a backer who is indifferent to short-run variance, not one who will pressure you mid-run.
Watch out You are permanently giving up a slice of the wins — this is the price of the discipline.
- 4
Negotiate a floor where the format allows
In winner-take-all structures, agree with a counterparty to guarantee each side a portion of the purse, with the balance to the winner.
Watch out Confirm the arrangement is permitted before relying on it.
- 5
Fix the discipline rule in advance
Commit to the same participation rate whether you are up or down. The whole point of the structure is to make that rule survivable.
Pro tip Write the rule down before the session so a drawdown cannot renegotiate it.
- 6
Audit the structure after each streak
Check whether your behaviour when behind actually matched the rule. If not, your remaining stake is still too large.
In the wild
The player Schrager profiles is emotionally volatile and once described being so overwhelmed by trying to keep himself in check that he would pass out. Rather than fight the temperament directly, he engineered his exposure downward: an investor stakes him for a share of the winnings, he puts in only around ten thousand dollars of his own money per tournament, and in one winner-take-all event he pulled an opponent aside to guarantee each of them roughly a million from the purse with the balance to the winner. With less genuinely at risk, he can keep playing only about twelve percent of hands even while losing.
→ Patience that survives a losing run, because the losing run no longer threatens him personally.
Common mistakes
Trying to out-discipline the bias
Loss aversion is a structural feature of how people weigh losses against gains; relying on composure alone fails precisely when the stakes are highest.
Chasing break-even
Deciding to hold or add until you get back to flat is the same bias in another costume, and it drives risk you would never have taken while ahead.
Cutting exposure but loosening the rules
Reducing your stake and then playing more hands with it recreates the original problem with extra fees attached.
Is it for you?
Best for
Traders, poker players and operators whose worst decisions cluster in drawdowns.
Not ideal for
Situations where giving away upside is unacceptable or no counterparty exists to take the stake.
From the transcript
“so he does all these things to take a little risk off the table and that keeps him rational.”
“this is the classic behavioral bias we called loss a version, which is when you're losing, you know you hate you hate losses so much…”
“he only puts in ten tho dollars of his own money in any poker tournament.”
From the episode
Allison Schrager Discusses Monetary Policy
Allison Schrager