noti, please ground me a bit here ...
When Kelly is discussed in the context of advantage blackjack play (where the delightful circumstance presents itself of being able to adjust one's wager in small increments and a game having very low variance), Kelly is the nirvana that optimizes one's expected bankroll growth.
In advocating a Kelly threshold for video poker (with respective conditions of disproportionate betting increments, substantially higher variance, and a skewed distribution curve), do you contend that the betting scheme below also maximizes expected bankroll growth?
I'm dubious. For example, generally speaking, betting below Kelly is no more advantageous to bankroll growth than betting above Kelly. So, it's difficult for me to understand why your scheme (that sets a Kelly bet as a upper threshold) stands out as optimal in this respect.
If bankroll growth isn't what's being optimized, what is the target of your scheme?
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
Or another way to look at this:
Any bankroll amount over 2925 x $5 = $14,625 is for dollar FPDW
Any bankroll amount over 2925 x $2.50 = $7,312.50 is for half dollar FPDW
Any bankroll amount over 2925 x $1.25 = $3,656.25 is for quarter FPDW
Any bankroll amount over 2925 x $.50 = $1,462.50 is for ten coin nickel FPDW
Any bankroll amount over 2925 x $.25 = $731.25 is for nickel FPDW
And this should be obvious, but just in case, I'm using FPDW as an obvious example, but any gamble is applicable, just substitute the appropriate Kelly number or estimate with variance / edge.
[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 (21) |
