Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

You are both wrong but in two different ways:

1 - you have to accept that the KC will only help *winning* players or help you at games with an edge. Period. If you apply it to a game with negative EV you will still lose.  So its really not fair to talk about gamblers that do it for "excitement". That's a misapplication of KC

2 - to say that "you can bet below KC but not above" is also misguided. You must always wager *at* the KC number. You must recall that the KC number is also designed to *optimize growth of your bankroll*. Knowing how much to wager on an edge is relatively simple calculation and/or monte-carlo simulation - that's just risk-of-ruin. But knowing how much to bet to *grow* your bankroll and get the most from any given EV, well, that's a whole other number . . . in fact, that's the KC :-)


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 007 <007@embarqmail.com> wrote:
 

nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:

>Don't get stuck if the Kelly bet is $5.522589, yes you can bet $5 and no you can't bet $6 or $10. It's that simple.

I think you're going too far here. It might depend on the situation,
since it's so close, but I believe there's more bankroll growth with a
$6 bet than $5.

But my main comment on a stress on the Kelly Criterion is skepticism
that stressing it is necessary. It's kind of like the situation with
Christians saying one has to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior or
spend eternity in hell, even if one was born into a country in which
no one is going to hear the name Christ. I happen to believe that
such people are not doomed to hell and will basically do all right,
even assuming that Christianity would have been a step in the right
direction, which I don't want to express an opinion about. What do
people without much understanding of the Kelly Criterion do? I doubt
if overbetting is generally much of a problem. Most gamblers can be
classified into the vast majority of losers, to whom Kelly would only
tell them to stop gambling, and professionals who, no matter how
unsophisticated their understanding of the Kelly Criterion is,
generally understand that they shouldn't bet more than a certain
amount and generally don't. I don't believe I've ever had much of a
sophisticated understanding of it, but I think I've done pretty well
in not overbetting my bankroll. And I'm skeptical that chronic
overbettors will be "cured" by understanding the Kelly Criterion.
Maybe they crave excitement so much that they wouldn't be affected by
such a cerebral approach. To make a case that the Kelly Criterion
needs to be propagated more, you'd have to show examples of people
whose failure had turned to success, not due to more positive EV, but
strictly due to not overbetting any more, with % EV held constant. It
wold have to be a professional who knows enough to have positive EV
but who is so blind to the danger of overbetting that s/he'll still
lose. I think that's rare. I don't think "Fortune's Formula" made
that case.


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

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:

>Don't get stuck if the Kelly bet is $5.522589, yes you can bet $5 and no you can't bet $6 or $10. It's that simple.

I think you're going too far here. It might depend on the situation,
since it's so close, but I believe there's more bankroll growth with a
$6 bet than $5.

But my main comment on a stress on the Kelly Criterion is skepticism
that stressing it is necessary. It's kind of like the situation with
Christians saying one has to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior or
spend eternity in hell, even if one was born into a country in which
no one is going to hear the name Christ. I happen to believe that
such people are not doomed to hell and will basically do all right,
even assuming that Christianity would have been a step in the right
direction, which I don't want to express an opinion about. What do
people without much understanding of the Kelly Criterion do? I doubt
if overbetting is generally much of a problem. Most gamblers can be
classified into the vast majority of losers, to whom Kelly would only
tell them to stop gambling, and professionals who, no matter how
unsophisticated their understanding of the Kelly Criterion is,
generally understand that they shouldn't bet more than a certain
amount and generally don't. I don't believe I've ever had much of a
sophisticated understanding of it, but I think I've done pretty well
in not overbetting my bankroll. And I'm skeptical that chronic
overbettors will be "cured" by understanding the Kelly Criterion.
Maybe they crave excitement so much that they wouldn't be affected by
such a cerebral approach. To make a case that the Kelly Criterion
needs to be propagated more, you'd have to show examples of people
whose failure had turned to success, not due to more positive EV, but
strictly due to not overbetting any more, with % EV held constant. It
wold have to be a professional who knows enough to have positive EV
but who is so blind to the danger of overbetting that s/he'll still
lose. I think that's rare. I don't think "Fortune's Formula" made
that case.

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

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

you mean the same company that had to *close* a casino because they couldn't sell it? Why would they ever tighten up . . .


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, <davidcp789@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Anybody noticing increased scrutiny when cashing out free play tickets? Hosts/suits show up instantly out of nowhere, tickets mysteriously don't work unless I go to the cage to get substitute tickets. I get the feeling that they don't appreciate all that action that I am giving them.


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

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

The Kelly criterion is actually somewhat complex, but I'll take a shot at a simple explanation anyway. First off, everyone has a gambling bankroll, even those who claim they don't or who claim their bankroll is infinite. That's just a load of cacadevaca, everyone has a gambling bankroll and nobody has an infinite bankroll. With that out of the way, the question arises as to how much you should bet? You could bet it all, but it shouldn't take much to realize that that is sheer lunacy. With one bet you'd be facing 50% risk of ruin (losing it all) or even worse. And if you keep on betting it all, the result will be that you will eventually lose it all, meaning 100% risk of ruin. As I said, sheer lunacy. Put that in the camp of people who claim to have infinite bankrolls. OK, with the preliminaries out of the way, then how much of your bankroll should you bet? Well, it turns out that the Kelly criterion is the mathematically optimal bet size for maximum average bankroll growth. You should bet that amount, or less, but never more. Don't get stuck if the Kelly bet is $5.522589, yes you can bet $5 and no you can't bet $6 or $10. It's that simple. Just remember: Kelly bet or less, never more. Remember the raven. Now, you may not believe in the Kelly criterion or may not understand the math behind it, but that doesn't matter, it still applies, always. It's not a question of belief, it's a mathematical truth. So there you have it, either follow the math, which leads to the Kelly criterion, or make up your own system for determining how much of your bankroll you should bet. And if you choose to violate the math of the Kelly criterion, all I can say is, good luck in crazy town.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

Anybody noticing increased scrutiny when cashing out free play tickets? Hosts/suits show up instantly out of nowhere, tickets mysteriously don't work unless I go to the cage to get substitute tickets. I get the feeling that they don't appreciate all that action that I am giving them.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Power Quads poker?

 

Power Quads is the same as Gambler's Bonus:

http://gamblersbonus.com/ways-to-win/

But watch out for the fine print, Power Quads might give you only 30 days to complete your set. And what happens if and when the casino takes out the Power Quads machines? Can they pull the machine when you have just one quad to go? Will gaming stop them from doing that? Will gaming force them to make a partial payment of the part of your card that you've completed? There's a big trust problem here.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (0)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 APR 2014

 
__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 APR 2014

 

nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:

>Why is Kelly important? How can I answer that question? Read Poundstone's "Fortune's Formula" to find out.

At your recommendation, I read this and I don't agree that it
clarified the importance of the Kelly Criterion. Thorp's competitors
who disagreed with him about the Kelly Criterion did not therefore
totally ignore the possibility of fluctuation destroying an otherwise
winning approach. Those who went bust may sometimes have done so
beause they overbet their bankroll, but, due to the less complete
information that a stock market player has than a blackjack or video
poker player, so could Thorp have. I believe that something like 98%
of Thorp's success was due to positive EV, not that he went by the
Kelly Criterion.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)
.

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