noti wrote:
Yes. That show was the interview of John Chang, former manager of the MIT Blackjack Team and Tommy Hyland, manager of a large blackjack team for decades. It was John who used the term. When his wife, Laurie C, was interviewed perhaps a year ago, she used the term a lot --- somewhat disparagingly.
I assume NOTI's definition is correct. I also assume that that John Chang has the ability to do the calculation. When Chang used the term, the expression on Tommy's face said that they didn't use that calculation on their team.
Bob
And that big word was "Certainty Equivalence". It's so big, you should google it. But the jist is that if your bankroll is unlimited, then CE = EV, but really, who has an unlimited bankroll? With an unlimited bankroll, the CE of say FPDW with perfect play is about 0.76% (of a betting unit). At 10x the Kelly bankroll, the CE is about 19/20ths of the EV or 0.72%. At double the Kelly bankroll, the CE is about 3/4ths or 0.57%. At the Kelly bankroll, the CE is about 1/2 or 0.38%. At half a Kelly bankroll, the CE is 0, and for a smaller bankroll the CE goes negative. Just something to consider.
CE is approximately EV - Variance/2xBankroll betting units
Kelly bankroll is approximately Variance/EV betting units
CE is approximately EV - Variance/2xBankroll betting units
Kelly bankroll is approximately Variance/EV betting units
Yes. That show was the interview of John Chang, former manager of the MIT Blackjack Team and Tommy Hyland, manager of a large blackjack team for decades. It was John who used the term. When his wife, Laurie C, was interviewed perhaps a year ago, she used the term a lot --- somewhat disparagingly.
I assume NOTI's definition is correct. I also assume that that John Chang has the ability to do the calculation. When Chang used the term, the expression on Tommy's face said that they didn't use that calculation on their team.
Bob
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (2) |
.
__,_._,___
