Well it was an interesting discussion the first few times. It would still be interesting if BD seemed to really want to be a part of this instead of getting dragged into it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (7) |
Does anyone know if Harrahs still offer boat tour around Lake Tahoe for Diamond members? If so, when does this become available?
Thanks
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
What if his bankroll is finite and lifespan is infinite?
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
You don't at all. Kelly's system only applies if you want to avoid bankruptcy at all costs while maximizing log bankroll growth. If these are non-issues for you, the Kelly system is a poor fit. In particular, if you are willing to deal with some risk of bankruptcy, the Kelly system is too conservative. And if your bankroll is infinite you can even play negative expectation games with no risk assuming a finite lifespan.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
Elaine Almazan
Sr. Executive Casino Host
Harrah's Rincon Casino & Resort
(760) 751-3286
ealmazan@rincon.harrahs.com
*agonpd@gmail.com <agonpd@gmail.com>*
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Misscraps misscraps@aol.com [vpFREE] <
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone have a host and a direct phone number? (Or number for VIP
> department）
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
Bob wrote: "Why do you believe I need to make growing a bankroll a top priority in my life?"
You don't at all. Kelly's system only applies if you want to avoid bankruptcy at all costs while maximizing log bankroll growth. If these are non-issues for you, the Kelly system is a poor fit. In particular, if you are willing to deal with some risk of bankruptcy, the Kelly system is too conservative. And if your bankroll is infinite you can even play negative expectation games with no risk assuming a finite lifespan.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
Ballad of the Air Canada Strap-on Pillow Seats *http://tinyurl.com/k5febcy
<http://tinyurl.com/k5febcy>*
A Sheerly Brilliant Scheme http://tinyurl.com/mm3kj4k
That's Not a Cigar Tube or 777 Jackpot *http://tinyurl.com/mfurxc4
<http://tinyurl.com/mfurxc4>*
--
Royal Flusher World www.royalflusherworld.com * Las Vegas the Royal Flusher
Way www.royalflushervegas.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
hBob wrote on going broke: "How much attention do I pay to the Kelly criterion when I play video poker today? NONE AT ALL."
Sorry to hear that. Of course it's quite possible that your bankroll has
become too large for video poker. You might need something that offers
larger bet sizes. You could go into the stock market like Bill Gross.
Why do you believe I need to make growing a bankroll a top priority in my life?
My bankroll is "large enough." (I hope)
My philosophy is to play with an edge and take Bonnie square dancing. I'm 68 years old, financially fine, with no heirs. I have my causes I'll donate to when I die, but whether I give these organizations $xxx or five times $xxx isn't that important to me. I don't envy the people who sit home and count their money every day.
My bankroll is not too large to play video poker. But it's large enough that the stakes I play for don't threaten my lifestyle.
My philosophy about such matters was different when I was 34 than when I'm 68. I made some good choices and saved well along te way, and I'm now reaping the rewards of that. And I like it that way!
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (4) |
Anyone have a host and a direct phone number? (Or number for VIP department）
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
But that wasn't the question. Look back and read what the guy asked.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <echlist@...> wrote :
No, it's still the odds that I quoted. That is the odds for any VP hand
to be a dealt sequential.
(I am assuming that each line on multistrike is from a full deck, like
regular multi-line VP.)
Edmund
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
Edmund,
Nothing wrong with your number as far as the dealt probability for a single line of video poker.
But the top line of multistrike isn't played indepenently of the other lines during a given play ... you must advance to it with wins or a Free Ride on each of the lower 3 lines. (Probability of advancement is roughly 50% from each lower line.)
So, to get the probability that coachvee requested (assuming he's really asking for the joint probability of advancing to the 4th level and being dealt a rf), you must take your number and divide it by 8 (1/2 ^ 3)
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <echlist@...> wrote :
No, it's still the odds that I quoted. That is the odds for any VP hand
to be a dealt sequential.
(I am assuming that each line on multistrike is from a full deck, like
regular multi-line VP.)
Edmund
On 5/19/2015 1:58 PM, harry.porter@... mailto:harry.porter@... [vpFREE] wrote:
>
>
> Right, so now factor in roughly one in 8 chance of dealing the top
> line of multistrike.
>
> In a word: astronomical (say, 1 in 320 mil)j
>
> So, Coach ... is this your way of saying you/Hedy should have been
> playing megabucks instead? ;) (Congrats on the nice hit, if so ...)
>
> - H.
>
>
> ---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <echlist@...> wrote :
>
> The odds of getting a sequential royal on any particular hand are 1 in
> 77,968,800 for ascending and the same for descending. So overall, 1 in
> 38,984,400.
>
> Edmund
>
> On 5/19/2015 9:48 AM, coachvee@... mailto:coachvee@... [vpFREE] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gang:
> > A question for all you math gurus out there.
> > What are the odds of getting a sequential royal dealt on the top
> line of
> > multi-strike?
> > Thanks,
> > CoachVee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
I should comment on the issue of accounting for all the other stuff you get for gambling. I recommend cash basis accounting, which means if something can get monetized and that money goes into your gambling bankroll, then it counts. Otherwise, if something can't get monetized it doesn't have any cash value in cash basis accounting. Most if not all gambling that I know of is done with cash, so cash basis accounting is probably the best fit. To give an example, if you were going to spend $10 from your day job for dinner, but instead won a free buffet coupon from the kiosk and put the $10 in your gambling bankroll, that counts, plus $10 to your bankroll. On the other hand if you won an unlimited pass to the steakhouse and ate so much you felt you should tip $20, $10 from your day job and $10 from your gambling bankroll, that counts also, but minus $10 from your gambling bankroll, so it ended up negative EV to your gambling bankroll.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
No, it's still the odds that I quoted. That is the odds for any VP hand
to be a dealt sequential.
(I am assuming that each line on multistrike is from a full deck, like
regular multi-line VP.)
Edmund
On 5/19/2015 1:58 PM, harry.porter@verizon.net [vpFREE] wrote:
>
>
> Right, so now factor in roughly one in 8 chance of dealing the top
> line of multistrike.
>
> In a word: astronomical (say, 1 in 320 mil)j
>
> So, Coach ... is this your way of saying you/Hedy should have been
> playing megabucks instead? ;) (Congrats on the nice hit, if so ...)
>
> - H.
>
>
> ---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <echlist@...> wrote :
>
> The odds of getting a sequential royal on any particular hand are 1 in
> 77,968,800 for ascending and the same for descending. So overall, 1 in
> 38,984,400.
>
> Edmund
>
> On 5/19/2015 9:48 AM, coachvee@... mailto:coachvee@... [vpFREE] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gang:
> > A question for all you math gurus out there.
> > What are the odds of getting a sequential royal dealt on the top
> line of
> > multi-strike?
> > Thanks,
> > CoachVee
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (4) |
Bob wrote on going broke: "How much attention do I pay to the Kelly criterion when I play video poker today? NONE AT ALL."
Sorry to hear that. Of course it's quite possible that your bankroll has become too large for video poker. You might need something that offers larger bet sizes. You could go into the stock market like Bill Gross.
Bob wrote: "The numbers NOTI publishes concerning playing 25 cent FPDW forever are of no interest to me as a gambler (although they are of interest to me as a video poker writer and teacher). I am likely never going to play that game because 25 cent single-line games are of no interest to me whatsoever."
I use FPDW as a common example, I leave it up to others to translate to their particular situations. Even today it is still a game that can be found, so it is not irrelevant to video poker. True, the earnings rate at quarters is on par with the minimum wage for a skilled player, but it might beat driving a bus from the airport to casinos as you mentioned as a backup plan. On the plus side the alcohol is free to FPDW players and there is no blood test or fbi background check required and you get to set your own hours.
Bob wrote: "Most of these formulae assume that we have a fixed bankroll --- with no extraneous inputs (perhaps income from a job, alimony, Social Security, a pension, etc.) or outputs (rent, our car needs a new transmission, expensive hobbies, etc.)"
Other inputs and outputs can be modeled as changes to EV. This is frequently put forth as a weakness to the Kelly system, but it's not at all. Of course there are other inputs and outputs, and they do count, model them as changes to EV. If your gambling is putting $10/hour into your bankroll and you put another $10/hour into your bankroll from your day job, your net EV into your bankroll is $20/hour.
Bob wrote: "I play in a world of murkier numbers."
Actually, we all do. Even the FPDW player is unlikely to get the computer optimal EV, instead there is some error rate which results in an actual EV of something less than computer optimal. The random number generator in the machine is not a true random number generator, it is a pseudo-random number generator, close but again some murkiness is involved. This is an issue with using the Kelly system, the common workaround is to bet less than Kelly so there is some margin of error. Typically applying math to the real world requires using some margin of error.
Bob wrote: "I'm not aware of video poker players going broke because they were expertly playing too big a game --- and got eaten alive by the variance. The ones I've heard of going broke are the ones who are no longer playing with an advantage. "
There's that word "advantage" again. I assume you meant "playing with an edge". I know a number of gamblers who went broke by gambling over their head (another way to say gambling over their bankroll) even though they clearly had an edge. It's surprisingly easy to do, in my experience. On thing video poker and poker has is variance, variance in spades you could say. I'm not saying you can ignore edge, edge is important, but so is variance. Assuming an edge, it's the variance that's the problem, it's the variance that can destroy bankrolls.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
