AP wrote: Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination. I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game."
That would be a "good play" if your current bankroll was over the Kelly limit (roughly betsize * variance / edge) and you can play several cycles of the one way sequential royal before the end of the current tax year.
Roughly speaking but with more math, a "good play" is when:
A. your current bankoll is over the Kelly limit (approx. variance/edge bets)
AND
B. you can play at least N0 (variance/edge/edge) hands before the end of the current tax year with the caveat of watching out for long cycle problems such as above
You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is negative EV.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (22) |
