I simultaneously feel like I'm understanding and not understanding, and I keep coming up with more questions.
Bankroll-wise, I'm probably a bit conservative. I just estimated based on the ROR page on the Wizard's site and went from there. I know the benefits and pitfalls of using Kelly (especially from my time as a poker player) but long story short my VP bankroll is around 15k and my usual game is 25c BP/JoB/NSUD. Sometimes on a multi-play I'll play more (like 10-play 5c for a total bet of $2.50) or with a really good promotion I'll go up to 50c NSUD. Right now my % advantage due to non-play winnings (freeplay, cashback, drawings) is 1.6%. I got lucky in some drawings but also I just started playing a few months ago so decent mailers are just now starting to show up. Feel free to tell me if I'm being too nitty with my bankroll. That said, I find myself in a situation where I sometimes play progressives so I feel that MCR is relevant.
A quick question about Kelly bankrolls. From the Wizard's page he says it's advantage/variance, so say you are playing 9/6 JoB and have a 1.5% advantage on top of that due to points. Then with max-EV it is 0.0104/19.5364 which is bet .05323% of your bankroll. Going back to my earlier example, let's take 9/6 JoB with an 8000 royal, then use the max-EV 9/6 JoB strategy. This gives a game with (according to FVP) a return of 101.56% and a variance of 68.07. Including the 1.5% advantage due to points we have .0306/68.07 which is bet .04495% of your bankroll. This is counter-intuitive to me. We use the same strategy on the same game except that when the royal is doubled Kelly says we should bet less of our bankroll. Why?
Back to the main topic. I understand where the 976 number comes from and how you can generate strategies based on it. I'm still not clear on why rakeback should change the strategy. For example, when I drop the royal to 0 I get the min-royal strategy you came up with and it has 97.9% return. If you re-add in the value when you do (rarely) hit the royal (which we will say is a standard 800) then you wind up around 99%. While still a positive game with the 2.1% you add back on, you could do a lot better. Is the only benefit here a lower variance/risk of ruin/being able to play higher?
Another question, on the FAQ page it says the MCR strategy is static. Am I correct when I interpret this to mean that this MCR strategy is the MCR strategy for arbitrary values of the royal? As an example, if the royal was only 1 or if it was 10000, the MCR strategy is the same. Obviously at some point the royal would get so large that, assuming an infinite bankroll, you would just go with a max-royal strategy.
Posted by: aonsf@reallymymail.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (10) |
