Sorry for the delay in reply, noti ... been pressing an "advantage" pretty hard these last few days ;)
I'm relieved by your last comments ... they position a viable middle ground on which I think we can both comfortably stand.
I'll stress that it's not my intent to dismiss MCR (or any other alternate goal strategies). They definitely have their place -- were I to tackle an attractive royal with a base game ER of <= 96%, I'd consider MCR to be a valuable tool.
And, as you suggest, I can definitely see the value of MCR strategy for a player who plays significantly less frequently then I do. I grasp the implicit value when it comes to mitigating risk of a losing year, from a tax perspective.
I'm a little more dubious on the last count you cite -- the "emotional angle" associated with a 5-royal drought. Assuming we're talking play of a moderate drought cost game (such as, say, 8/5 BP) as opposed to the prior progressive discussion, while MCR will soften the expected damage of such a drought, it's my impression that we're talking about a loss reduction of no more than 5% (and likely considerably less).
I haven't run the numbers since this was first discussed by you (something like 3 years back), but I came away from the math with the idea that the loss reduction wasn't material enough in my book to reduce any resultant limp as I walked from the play.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
I'm not sure that double Kelly (or half Kelly, depending on if you're looking at bankroll or betsize) is sufficient to just assume maxEV strategy. Maybe it is, maybe you need more like 5x Kelly. But there is also the time factor. MCR strategy is centered on that next royal, which is probably attainable this year. The Kelly approach is longer term, you need at least an N0 cycle, which is likely (hopefully) many royals, and you probably need to do that this year since you can't (legally) carry forward gambling losses.
But I can't find any fault with your basic argument, namely if you have a big enough bankroll and can play enough hands per tax year, then maxEV is optimal. Essentially, it's a longer term view, you don't really care what the cost of your next royal is, what you care about is your yearly result. This assumes you have lots of opportunities to hit these royals, which would be a questionable assumption on a progressive, and might be a questionable assumption on a promotion that may only last a month or so. Additionally, there might be hidden value in extending the time to hit a royal, such as gaining more meter movement on a progressive or perhaps getting one more mailer before cutoff.
Another angle would be the emotional angle. If you went into a 5 royal drought, would that cause you great emotional anguish? Now, MCR can't protect you from 5 royal droughts, but would you sleep better at night knowing that if you play with MCR you would be minimizing the cost of that 5 royal drought? If so, you might be a candidate for MCR.
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (16) |
