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".
