Again, I think the overwhelming majority of gamblers tend to be much more
concerned about minimizing their risk of ruin at a given stakes without
having to move down (or allowing for maybe one or two drops in stakes) than
they are about optimal bankroll growth rates at infinity. I don't want to
speak for Bob Dancer, but I'm pretty sure he would forgo optimum exponential
bankroll growth if it meant he never had to play nickels or hustle coupons
again.
Now you could call that "fractional Kelly" betting, but I would argue that
one needn't even know anything about Kelly at all to functionally manage and
grow a working professional gambling bankroll. Ok, you're betting a fraction
of Kelly's optimum. So what?
Which brings me full circle back to the original poster's question about
adding hands as he wins for the day. This question has zero to do with Kelly
betting. It's not a question about optimizing exponential bankroll growth
rates, and it's not a question that involves an infinite number of trials.
So, IMO, the word "Kelly" should never have entered this thread.. and the
fact that it did, in my view, supports the idea that Kelly is widely
overused and misused.
Ed
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:17 PM, nightoftheiguana2000 <
nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Are you the Ed Miller who writes a poker column?
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Ed Miller <ed.miller@...> wrote:
> > Which is why, to me, Kelly is not a useful model for the vast majority of
> > gamblers. Most people who gamble aren't in the bankroll growing business.
> > Even pro players aren't.
>
> Maybe they are but they don't know it. Bankroll growing is kinda important
> in gambling, it allows you to move up to bigger EV games, and it allows you
> to cash out some for that big wish expenditure. But you do have to watch the
> cashouts, they effectively reduce your EV. If your EV is $100/hr, but your
> nut (cost) is $10/hr, your real EV is only $90/hr and you need to adjust to
> that.
>
>
> > They are much more interested in bankroll
> > preservation than optimal bankroll growth.
>
> Kelly supports that. You can bet the optimal ratio, or some fraction, which
> reduces gain but also reduces risk, which is a valid tradeoff. Of course the
> ultimate is not to gamble at all, they you have full bankroll preservation.
> The no-go zone in Kelly betting is to overbet the optimal Kelly fraction,
> because then you are taking on more risk (more threat to your bankroll) in
> exchange for less bankroll growth.
>
> If you want a book to read on Kelly, try "Fortune's Formula".
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
