[vpFREE] Happy Thanksgiving (and Happy Hanukkah too)

 
__,_._,___

RE: RE: [vpFREE] RE: Bob Dancer's LVA 26 NOV 2013

 

Bob wrote: "IF YOU PLAY 800 HANDS AN HOUR, AND ASSUMING THAT 200 OF THEM END UP WITH "BREAKEVEN" SCORES, THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO RECALCULATE YOUR BANKROLL 600 TIMES AN HOUR. i CAN'T SEE ANYBODY DOING THAT. CALLING SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DO THAT "SLOPPY" SETS AN IMPOSSIBLY HIGH STANDARD."


I still disagree. The way you phrase it, it sounds impossible. But really, a good gambler should know what they have put into a machine, and you know the credits on the machine, the difference represents the effect to your bankroll, in real time. Example: I'm pounding away on some machine, you come up to me and say: "ok, right now, exactly what is your bankroll, I bet you can't tell me". On the contrary, whenever I gamble I am always aware of what my "buyin" and "rebuys" are, say in this case I've put $2,400 into this slot. And I see the current credits are $300. I know my current running bankroll is what it was prior to starting this slot minus $2,100.



On the topic of monetizing comps, I guess I would say that comps are largely worthless, unless they can be monetized, and if they can be monetized, then they are worth the amount they can be monetized for. And right, a $500 Macy's card or whatever is probably worthless, unless you can sell it to someone, because if you actually use it you are likely to buy something that you didn't need anyway and could have gotten cheaper on amazon.


And on the topic of going bankrupt, now I'm a Kelly gambler, so going bankrupt is anathema to me, but really, I'm not sure that it disqualifies you from being a professional gambler. It seems that most of the "professional gamblers" I know have gone bankrupt at least once and have come back, so really bankruptcy is just a passing phase. Maybe the "true" professional gamblers are the ones that can come back from bankruptcy while us Kelly players never experiencing bankruptcy are just the lightweights.







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

I enjoy NOTI's observations. I wish to respond to what he said. I will write my comments in caps interspersed with his. I know this looks like I'm shouting --- but it's the best way I know how to do this when he made a number of comments in the same post.

 

 

Some comments:


Bob wrote: "If someone somehow had an accurate number as of last night, how often is it recalculated?"


Recalculated every time there's a change in money out or money in. Having an accurate number is the field of accounting. Sloppy accounting generally causes problems.


IF YOU PLAY 800 HANDS AN HOUR, AND ASSUMING THAT 200 OF THEM END UP WITH "BREAKEVEN" SCORES, THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO RECALCULATE YOUR BANKROLL 600 TIMES AN HOUR. i CAN'T SEE ANYBODY DOING THAT. CALLING SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DO THAT "SLOPPY" SETS AN IMPOSSIBLY HIGH STANDARD.


Bob wrote: "How does he account for free play that he knows is coming?"


The simple answer is it doesn't count until it actually goes into the bankroll, the more complex answer has to do with present value versus future value, cash basis versus accrual basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_of_accounting


THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. USING PRESENT VALUE IS ANOTHER VALID WAY TO DO IT. THERE IS NO ONE UNIQUE WAY. YOU ARE NOT PRESENTING YOUR RESULTS TO SHAREHOLDERS OR THE GOVERNMENT SO YOU CAN USE WHATEVER METHODOLOGY THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.


Bob wrote: "How does he monetize comps?"


If $1 comp can be monetized to $1 cash, it is worth $1, when monetized. Otherwise there are different ratios.


 THIS STATEMENT IS LARGELY TAUTOLOGICAL. IT DOESN'T REALLY EXPLAIN ANYTHING.


Bob wrote: "If you own a house and are willing to put a $200,000 mortgage on it if your gambling bankroll goes down to zero, should you consider that $200,000 as part of your bankroll?"


Yes, this was the original use of a property mortgage, for example a farmer would mortgage a part of his farm to buy a new tractor, presumably he felt that was plus EV. Make sure to account for the interest on the debt. That's a collateral loan, you are effectively monetizing property. A no collateral loan is a leveraged bet, which under the Kelly system you would never do. Gamblers typically take out "markers" which are zero interest loans and can often come with loss rebates, either implied or actual. A loss rebate can make a marker attractive to Kelly gamblers.

google.com/search?q=gambling+marker


KELLY IS ONE (EXCELLENT) SYSTEM IF YOUR GOAL IS TO GROW YOUR BANKROLL AT THE MAXIMUM RATE. THERE ARE OTHER VALID GOALS. kELLY IS NOT THE END ALL OF METHODS.


Bob wrote: "In one of Stanford Wong's books, he defined bankroll as the amount of money you're willing to lose before you give up gambling. I like that definition, but when push comes to shove, I don't know how to calculate it. If you have a current bankroll of $20,000, it's one thing to SAY that if your gambling bankroll decreases to $2,000, you're going to stop gambling "forever and ever amen." It's another thing entirely to ACTUALLY QUIT at that time."


Having a hard "stop loss limit" is important anytime you're dealing with a possibly addictive behavior. If you can't set a stop loss limit and keep it, you should avoid that activity because you are likely to descend into addiction.


NO ARGUMENT THAT ADDICTIVE PERSONALITIES "SHOULD" DO THIS. BUT THE CLOSER TO HAVING AN ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY YOU ARE, THE LESS LIKELY YOU'LL STOP WHEN YOU REACH THAT LIMIT.


DISCUSSING THESE THINGS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANYONE WHO GAMBLES WITH NON-TRIVIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY. i WENT BROKE IN THE LATE 70S DUE TO GAMBLING LOSSES. i HAD TO BITE THE BULLET AND GO GET A JOB. AT THE TIME i HAD TO ADMIT TO MYSELF THAT I DIDN'T HAVE WHAT IT TOOK TO SUCCEED AS A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER. TODAY I HAVE BETTER SKILLS AND MORE DISCIPLINE. i'M ASSUMING THAT I'LL NEVER GO BROKE AGAIN --- BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT 100% POSITIVE SO LONG AS i CONTINUE TO GAMBLE.


BOB






 

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

__,_._,___

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

 

---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <ms_vpfree_3@...> wrote:


> From: rob ried

> A related question I have always puzzled about. 
> Does two people playing out of a common bankroll
> change the risk of return calculation? 

Jean Scott addressed this in her latest blog:

"Having a "gambling buddy" can be an economic advantage, especially if you have a small bankroll, because two people playing the same play together don't need a bigger bankroll than the solo player."

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3261


That's true if we're considering the longterm bankroll needs of two people playing forever (and with an edge).    If two people agree to become partners for a limited time, things are different, although there is still an economic advantage to being partners.   For a trip, the partners DO need to bring a larger combined bankroll than a single player would have to have brought.

 

Consider a weekend trip in which two players each want to play 20 hours of $1 Pick'em.  For a single player, a $4000 bankroll would result in a 2% RoR.   But if both players try to play 20 hours on a $4000 bankroll, then that's the same as a single player playing 40 hours.   The Trip RoR would jump up to 14%.

 

The two partners can achieve the same 2% RoR with a combined bankroll of $6000.   So having a partner allows you to reduce your weekend bankroll from $4K to $3K while keeping the same RoR.   But it doesn't allow you to reduce it to $2K.

 

--Dunbar

 

(all calcs done with Dunbar's Risk Analyzer for Video Poker)


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

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] RE: Bob Dancer's LVA 26 NOV 2013

 

I enjoy NOTI's observations. I wish to respond to what he said. I will write my comments in caps interspersed with his. I know this looks like I'm shouting --- but it's the best way I know how to do this when he made a number of comments in the same post.

 

 

Some comments:


Bob wrote: "If someone somehow had an accurate number as of last night, how often is it recalculated?"


Recalculated every time there's a change in money out or money in. Having an accurate number is the field of accounting. Sloppy accounting generally causes problems.


IF YOU PLAY 800 HANDS AN HOUR, AND ASSUMING THAT 200 OF THEM END UP WITH "BREAKEVEN" SCORES, THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO RECALCULATE YOUR BANKROLL 600 TIMES AN HOUR. i CAN'T SEE ANYBODY DOING THAT. CALLING SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T DO THAT "SLOPPY" SETS AN IMPOSSIBLY HIGH STANDARD.


Bob wrote: "How does he account for free play that he knows is coming?"


The simple answer is it doesn't count until it actually goes into the bankroll, the more complex answer has to do with present value versus future value, cash basis versus accrual basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_of_accounting


THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. USING PRESENT VALUE IS ANOTHER VALID WAY TO DO IT. THERE IS NO ONE UNIQUE WAY. YOU ARE NOT PRESENTING YOUR RESULTS TO SHAREHOLDERS OR THE GOVERNMENT SO YOU CAN USE WHATEVER METHODOLOGY THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.


Bob wrote: "How does he monetize comps?"


If $1 comp can be monetized to $1 cash, it is worth $1, when monetized. Otherwise there are different ratios.


 THIS STATEMENT IS LARGELY TAUTOLOGICAL. IT DOESN'T REALLY EXPLAIN ANYTHING.


Bob wrote: "If you own a house and are willing to put a $200,000 mortgage on it if your gambling bankroll goes down to zero, should you consider that $200,000 as part of your bankroll?"


Yes, this was the original use of a property mortgage, for example a farmer would mortgage a part of his farm to buy a new tractor, presumably he felt that was plus EV. Make sure to account for the interest on the debt. That's a collateral loan, you are effectively monetizing property. A no collateral loan is a leveraged bet, which under the Kelly system you would never do. Gamblers typically take out "markers" which are zero interest loans and can often come with loss rebates, either implied or actual. A loss rebate can make a marker attractive to Kelly gamblers.

google.com/search?q=gambling+marker


KELLY IS ONE (EXCELLENT) SYSTEM IF YOUR GOAL IS TO GROW YOUR BANKROLL AT THE MAXIMUM RATE. THERE ARE OTHER VALID GOALS. kELLY IS NOT THE END ALL OF METHODS.


Bob wrote: "In one of Stanford Wong's books, he defined bankroll as the amount of money you're willing to lose before you give up gambling. I like that definition, but when push comes to shove, I don't know how to calculate it. If you have a current bankroll of $20,000, it's one thing to SAY that if your gambling bankroll decreases to $2,000, you're going to stop gambling "forever and ever amen." It's another thing entirely to ACTUALLY QUIT at that time."


Having a hard "stop loss limit" is important anytime you're dealing with a possibly addictive behavior. If you can't set a stop loss limit and keep it, you should avoid that activity because you are likely to descend into addiction.


NO ARGUMENT THAT ADDICTIVE PERSONALITIES "SHOULD" DO THIS. BUT THE CLOSER TO HAVING AN ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY YOU ARE, THE LESS LIKELY YOU'LL STOP WHEN YOU REACH THAT LIMIT.


DISCUSSING THESE THINGS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANYONE WHO GAMBLES WITH NON-TRIVIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY. i WENT BROKE IN THE LATE 70S DUE TO GAMBLING LOSSES. i HAD TO BITE THE BULLET AND GO GET A JOB. AT THE TIME i HAD TO ADMIT TO MYSELF THAT I DIDN'T HAVE WHAT IT TOOK TO SUCCEED AS A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER. TODAY I HAVE BETTER SKILLS AND MORE DISCIPLINE. i'M ASSUMING THAT I'LL NEVER GO BROKE AGAIN --- BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THAT 100% POSITIVE SO LONG AS i CONTINUE TO GAMBLE.


BOB






 

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

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] RE: Re: Video Poker Hackers Cleared of Federal Charges

 

My theory is that these guys didn't figure out the combination of keystrokes necessary to trigger this "error" by themselves, they just don't look that bright.  I believe that someone that worked on the software team planted that "back door" and gave it to a few people with the expectation of being given a percentage of the profit.  They should be looking at the bank accounts of the entire software team to see who had a significant amount of extra income.  That person or persons is guilty of a crime.

 



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bob.berger1@...> wrote:

I wonder how they discovered the software bug in the first place.  As I remember it, the denomination had to be changed during the double-up feature.  Any theories?

 

Bob B.

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

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