Bob, I'll intercede for NOTI and note that you've misread his reply ...
In short, he would never suggest it was worth giving up 0.4% ER on an alternate strategy.
He indicated that using min-loss strategy, you would expect to be AHEAD 50 cents per hand vs playing max-EV strategy.
The offset to this is you lengthen the RF cycle, with some offsetting ER cost. The net of these two impacts is typically a thin shave to overall ER, in exchange for the bankroll preservation benefit.
I don't knpw the specifics offhand, but expect the net ER cost on the 5000 hand session you suggest is more in the magnitude of $250-$500, not $2500 ... with the benefit of an expectation of coming away with $2500 more on any non-RF hit session.
Since I believe you are well bankrolled for $25 play, and engage in it with not insignificant frequency, I don't think the strategy is advisable for you.
But the gist of the strategy does have its attractions.
- H.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobdancervp@...> wrote :
50 cents a hand times 5000 hands means I would give up $2,500 playing the min Royal strategy. I agree it's a matter of opinion --- but to me that's clearly significant. Voluntarily giving up 0.4% on a play that is possibly worth less than that is against my religion. The play itself was worth 100.15% or thereabouts --- plus one-time-only matching offer of seed money plus an unknown amount (when I was making the play) of comps and mailers.
For it to make sense I would have to believe that using the strategy would improve my mailers in the future by more than $2,500. I'm nowhere close to believing that. Whether or not it "would have been true" is unknowable.
bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (17) |
