[vpFREE] RE: RE: RE: RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

For example, as long as your bankroll is over $7,312.50 you'd play 10 coin quarter FPDW, if your bankroll is between $7,312.50 and $3,656.25 you'd play 5 coin quarter FPDW, if your bankroll is between $3,656.25 and $1,462.50 you'd play 10 coin nickel FPDW, if your bankroll is between $1,462.50 and $731.25 you'd play 5 coin nickel FPDW, below $731.25 you'd have to stop and return to your day job to build your gambling bankroll back up. You would never bust out, but you might have to quit gambling and go back to work at some point. By using the Kelly system to define your stop limits, you would be optimizing bankroll growth, for the bet sizes you have available.





---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

In the real world bet sizing is always discrete, even if it's at the penny level. In the case of FPDW you might have a choice of $2.50, $1.25, $.50, $.25. One of those sizes is more Kelly optimal than the rest for a given bankroll. Multicoin and Multiplay games often provide even more choices of bet size, though not very often for FPDW.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <eecounter@...> wrote:

 



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


"With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion....."

 

Well, not exactly.  The Kelly system does promise a zero chance of going broke, but only if you can continually resize your bets downward if you start to lose.  Betting strictly according to the Kelly system requires a re-sizing of bets after every change in bankroll size, even down to fractions of a penny bets if you run particularly bad.  (All of this assumes you have an advantage.  The Kelly bet size for a negative expectation bet is $0.)

In the real world, this kind of bet re-sizing just isn't possible, particularly with VP.  If you start out with some fixed amount of money, *and you maintain a fixed bet level*, you definitely have a non-zero chance of going broke, no matter how much money you start out with.

On the positive side, if you start out with a large enough bankroll relative to bet size, and a strong enough advantage, then we might be able to say your chance of going broke is "just about impossible", even if you can't re-size bets downward.

 

EE 

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: RE: RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

In the real world bet sizing is always discrete, even if it's at the penny level. In the case of FPDW you might have a choice of $2.50, $1.25, $.50, $.25. One of those sizes is more Kelly optimal than the rest for a given bankroll. Multicoin and Multiplay games often provide even more choices of bet size, though not very often for FPDW.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <eecounter@...> wrote:

 



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


"With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion....."

 

Well, not exactly.  The Kelly system does promise a zero chance of going broke, but only if you can continually resize your bets downward if you start to lose.  Betting strictly according to the Kelly system requires a re-sizing of bets after every change in bankroll size, even down to fractions of a penny bets if you run particularly bad.  (All of this assumes you have an advantage.  The Kelly bet size for a negative expectation bet is $0.)

In the real world, this kind of bet re-sizing just isn't possible, particularly with VP.  If you start out with some fixed amount of money, *and you maintain a fixed bet level*, you definitely have a non-zero chance of going broke, no matter how much money you start out with.

On the positive side, if you start out with a large enough bankroll relative to bet size, and a strong enough advantage, then we might be able to say your chance of going broke is "just about impossible", even if you can't re-size bets downward.

 

EE 

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: RE: RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

Dunbar wrote: "Since bet size cannot be smoothly lowered when playing video poker, even Kelly betting can't save us from having a finite chance of going broke if we continue playing."


Since there's always some min bet size, there is always some finite chance of hitting that limit in the Kelly system. Technically not broke, but a very small remaining bankroll. And often, but not always, that chance is very small (as long as you can step down bet size several times).



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <h_dunbar@...> wrote:

NOTI, you argue that Kelly betting contradicts Jean's assertion that "There is never a zero chance of going broke."    But in your FPDW example, you assume the player would stop betting when the bankroll reached the minimum level needed for a correct Kelly bet.  So the player avoids going broke by stopping betting.   I think we can all agree that we'll never lose our entire bankroll if we stop betting!  ;>)


(You also mentioned looking for a lower denomination game if your bankroll reached the Kelly minimum level, but eventually there's a point beyond which you cannot lower your bet and would have to stop betting to avoid going broke.)


Jean's (implied) assertion was that a person who bet indefinitely would have a finite chance of going broke.  That's a correct statement, IMO.  Since bet size cannot be smoothly lowered when playing video poker, even Kelly betting can't save us from having a finite chance of going broke if we continue playing.   


--Dunbar



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion. I think, if I remember correctly, the Kelly number for FPDW with no other sweeteners and perfect play is 2925 bets, so for 5 coin quarters you would stop gambling at a bankroll of $3,656.25, meaning your bankroll would never go lower than that amount. Of course if you can find 10 coin nickel FPDW, the Kelly stop limit there would be $1,462.50, and for 5 coin nickel FPDW it would be $731.25  Google "Kelly betting" for details.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

Can You Still Do It? – Part 3

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3255


*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] RE: Pick 'em Poker Risk of ruin calculation

 

I have seen versions of pickem with a joker and with deuces wild, but no info on them seems to exist.


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM, <tringlomane@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

 That's definitely true johnny.  I learned that in ~2003 when Harrah's STL used to have full-pay pick 'em for quarters.  I failed to get a quad before it got yanked.  I probably played at least a couple thousand hands too.  Ironically, I finally did get a quad in pick 'em last year when I was showing a friend how to play video poker.  But I was playing nickels because the paytable was crap...grrrr



---In vpfree@yahoogroups.com, <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:

PE is a funny game. Even though the long test variance is fairly low, you can lose a ton on money between quads ( about every 2300 hands). Dunbar's program will show you that you should not give up the day job for this play.

 



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <eric_vp1991@...> wrote:

... there is a bank of $1 near full pay (1195 instead of 1199 for a straight flush) Pick 'em Poker returning 99.9510% with a variance of 14.995645 and a 0.125% cash back slot club. All things considered, it should be a positive EV game 24/7.


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Mob Museum

 

On Friday, November 15, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., The Mob Museum, The National Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement, will commemorate the anniversary of the Kefauver Committee hearing, which took place in its building on Nov. 15, 1950, by offering FREE admission during regular operating hours for Nevada residents. Non-Nevada residents will receive buy one, get one admission that day. Kefauver Day at The Mob Museum is sponsored by Zappos.

 

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] RE: Today I was dealt a Sequential Royal Flush!

 

What are the odds of getting the ACES 4 aces in ACES Bonus.
 
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: alan3262@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:47:03 -0800
Subject: [vpFREE] RE: Today I was dealt a Sequential Royal Flush!

 

Thanks for the correction, I need to pay more attention to what I'm reading.  That is pretty amazing.



---In vpfree@yahoogroups.com, <harry.porter@...> wrote:

 Odds in the original post were for a DEALT sequential royal flush, ordered A-T



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <alan3262@...> wrote:

Where do you get odds of 1 in 77,968,800 for a sequential royal flush?  Not knowing exactly what game you were playing, let's say the probability of a royal flush is 1 in 40,000.  The probability that given a royal flush, it is sequential, is 1 in 60 (assuming that either A/K/Q/J/10 or 10/J/Q/K/A counts).  Multiply the 2 numbers, and you get 1 in 2.4 million.


The 1/60 value assumes that you are not doing anything differently to get a sequential royal flush compared to trying to get any royal flush.  I'm not clear if the jackpot required a sequential royal flush, or if it was for any royal flush.  If it was only for a sequential, there would probably be some strategy adjustments if you had 2 or more royal flush cards in the right positions, so that might increase the chances slightly that a royal flush will be sequential.


If the progressive is for any royal flush, with a jackpot that high (I'm assuming your nickel machine required only 5 nickels for the jackpot of $545.15, which is over 2.7x the normal payout), you would probably be making major adjustments to your strategy in order to maximize EV, and these adjustments would increase the probability of a royal flush.  For example, you would most likely always keep a high pair over 3 to a royal flush.  In that case, your chances of getting a royal flush (including sequential royal flushes) would improve somewhat.



---In vpfree@yahoogroups.com, <neocacher@...> wrote:

Too bad it was only in nickels!  However it was a Progressive with 3x points .5% slot club. The EV was 100.3% today, that is why I was playing it.  Dealt AKQJ10 hearts.

This is the one of the only 100+% opportunities in Deadwood, SD. Odds are 77,968,800 to one. But you already knew that!

Truly a once in a lifetime event for me, I am sure.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (23)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

NOTI, you argue that Kelly betting contradicts Jean's assertion that "There is never a zero chance of going broke."    But in your FPDW example, you assume the player would stop betting when the bankroll reached the minimum level needed for a correct Kelly bet.  So the player avoids going broke by stopping betting.   I think we can all agree that we'll never lose our entire bankroll if we stop betting!  ;>)


(You also mentioned looking for a lower denomination game if your bankroll reached the Kelly minimum level, but eventually there's a point beyond which you cannot lower your bet and would have to stop betting to avoid going broke.)


Jean's (implied) assertion was that a person who bet indefinitely would have a finite chance of going broke.  That's a correct statement, IMO.  Since bet size cannot be smoothly lowered when playing video poker, even Kelly betting can't save us from having a finite chance of going broke if we continue playing.   


--Dunbar



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion. I think, if I remember correctly, the Kelly number for FPDW with no other sweeteners and perfect play is 2925 bets, so for 5 coin quarters you would stop gambling at a bankroll of $3,656.25, meaning your bankroll would never go lower than that amount. Of course if you can find 10 coin nickel FPDW, the Kelly stop limit there would be $1,462.50, and for 5 coin nickel FPDW it would be $731.25  Google "Kelly betting" for details.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

Can You Still Do It? – Part 3

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3255


*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

 



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


"With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion....."

 

Well, not exactly.  The Kelly system does promise a zero chance of going broke, but only if you can continually resize your bets downward if you start to lose.  Betting strictly according to the Kelly system requires a re-sizing of bets after every change in bankroll size, even down to fractions of a penny bets if you run particularly bad.  (All of this assumes you have an advantage.  The Kelly bet size for a negative expectation bet is $0.)

In the real world, this kind of bet re-sizing just isn't possible, particularly with VP.  If you start out with some fixed amount of money, *and you maintain a fixed bet level*, you definitely have a non-zero chance of going broke, no matter how much money you start out with.

On the positive side, if you start out with a large enough bankroll relative to bet size, and a strong enough advantage, then we might be able to say your chance of going broke is "just about impossible", even if you can't re-size bets downward.

 

EE 

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

 

Jean wrote: "There is never a zero chance of going broke."


With the Kelly system there is zero chance of going broke, and a very reduced risk of bankroll depletion. I think, if I remember correctly, the Kelly number for FPDW with no other sweeteners and perfect play is 2925 bets, so for 5 coin quarters you would stop gambling at a bankroll of $3,656.25, meaning your bankroll would never go lower than that amount. Of course if you can find 10 coin nickel FPDW, the Kelly stop limit there would be $1,462.50, and for 5 coin nickel FPDW it would be $731.25  Google "Kelly betting" for details.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <vpfree3355@...> wrote:

Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

Can You Still Do It? – Part 3

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3255


*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Tropicana

 

Free Play and Bonus Free Play at Trop is usually able to be downloaded by 10 AM but not able to be played until 2 PM. You must download at a kiosk. Play will be available at most machines until the end of that gaming day which is 5:59 AM.

Sent from my iPhone

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 13 NOV 2013

Can You Still Do It? – Part 3

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3255


*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************


------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

[vpFREE] RE: RE: Tuscany - Personnel changes

 

Wow, I knew Terrible's was good but I didn't know it was THAT good.  The 17/10 LDW must have been before I started going to Vegas.  I do remember, however, I think around 2007 or 2008, I went to Vegas and planned on doing a lot of things when I got there.  But soon as I got there I discovered that they had just put in two banks of 17/10 LDW over at the Orleans.  I spent the whole week there and didn't get anything else done.  lol



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <rjreinfort@...> wrote:

Ah Terribles . . . I remember when they first opened, they had .25 and .50 17/10 LD, with comped rooms, and meals, and all the free drinks had groups of pros *living* there for months, hammering those machines practically 24/7.



---In vpfree@yahoogroups.com, <dds2124@...> wrote:

Today I learned from the Player's Club reps that the Director of Marketing was let go last week. She was brought in a few months ago and the promotions went downhill almost immediately.

Hopefully the promotions will return to what they were: the 10x points on video poker, the twice a month mystery free play and maybe even the 8/5 BP!!

Don the Dentist

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)