To elaborate a bit on my previous message, analyzing the game as a
whole and each play in that game are somewhat related, since changing
how any hand is played will change the frequency of each ending hand
overall, which changes the bankroll requirement for playing the game.
It's conceivable to not be able to afford a game if played by max-EV,
but be able to afford it if each hand is played according to the Kelly
Criterion, due to reducing fluctuation by more than EV has been
reduced.
>I understand (conceptually, if not mathematically) the Kelly principle, but have not heard about "certainty equivalent" before. Can someone explain that to me (again, conceptually). If one's bankroll is NOT large enough to properly qualify as an adequate "Kelly" bankroll, I understand that you have less than optimal chance of doubling bankroll, but does that situation also change the way you should play, or are plays of higher expectation still preferred over those of lower expectation in every situation?
>
>Instinctively, it seems to me that even if you are playing (and I understand that long-term, it's not "correct" play) above your bankroll, that the correct decision for each hand should still be the same.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--BG
>===============
>
>1.1. Re: Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush?????
> Posted by: "007" 007@embarqmail.com mdmgyn
> Date: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:29 am ((PDT))
>
>nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>In case anyone wants to double check the numbers:
>>
>>hand: AJT9s8o
>>
>>hold AJTs:
>>outs: 1rf,35fl,15st,9-3k,27-2p,240hp
>>EV=1.2867715 VAR=592.17308
>>
>>hold AJT9s:
>>outs: 9fl,6hp
>>EV=1.2765957 VAR=5.3915799
>>
>>Certainty Equivalent = EV - VAR/2xBankroll
>>
>>For Bankroll < 28,832 bets (about 36 royals), AJT9s has a higher Certainty Equivalent
>
>I compared the Kelly formulas and got 28,298 units as the bankroll
>that equates them.
Posted by: 007 <007@embarqmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
