I hope so too. It's now three times in two weeks
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 (23) |
Go get him, Bob! I enjoy the information and banter on this web site very
much but draw the line at having promotions thown at me. It's like
embedding spam in the middle of your reading. I hope the administrator is
behind you.
Stu M
[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 (22) |
nightoftheiguana2000
<mailto:nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20Bob%20Dancer%27s%20LVA%20-%2019%20MAY%202015>
wrote:
"The Jazbo/Sorokin formula is nice, I use it a lot, but there are three
problems with the Jazbo/Sorokin formula:
1. It assumes play forever. For the non-infinite human timespan you need
something like Dunbar's Risk Analyzer.
2. What do you do if any risk of bankruptcy is unacceptable? In other
words, what if your desired ROR is 0%? Other than an infinite bankroll,
Jazbo/Sorokin has no answer to that question, Kelly does. Kelly answers
the question of how do you play without going bankrupt and on a finite
bankroll.
3. What is an optimal betsize or in the case of Jazbo/Sorokin, what is
the optimal level of risk? Jazbo/Sorokin has no answer to this question,
Kelly does."
In response:
1. Sorokin/Jazbo does not necessarily assume playing forever. Optimum
Video Poker also uses it to calculate Risk of Ruin Before a Royal Flush.
2. What to do if any RoR is unacceptable? Kelly does not answer this
adequately for video poker because it is impossible to vary your bet
size in small increments. The only way to absolutely avoid ruin is,
DON'T PLAY AT ALL.
3. What is optimum (or optimal if you prefer that word) is highly
subjective. My book, Video Poker Optimum Play, provides tools to assist
each player in answering this question for himself. Some of these tools
are implemented in Optimum Video Poker.
How to best use Sorokin/Jazbo? Select a game of your choice and try
Sorokin with your current bankroll and each of the available machine
denominations, then pick the denomination that is most compatible with
your emotional tolerance of risk.
[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 (21) |
Bob Dancer wrote:
Happily, Dan's post comes with a special bonus that far
surpasses whatever "quaintness" it exhibits.
It's his second post in two weeks in which he has promoted
his software. That puts him in violation of the rules around
here and allows us all to find out what kind of penalty the
administrator will invoke!
_______________________________________
Here is the vpFREE policy on promotional posts:
"PROMOTIONAL POSTS: The preferred method for marketing
products and services on vpFREE is an unobtrusive link
underneath the signature at the end of a post and/or
advertising on the vpFREE Exchange. In addition, a member
may make a maximum of one vp-related promotional post in
any 6 month period."
A promotional post, for vpFREE purposes, is a post that
promotes a commercial product, and isn't directly related to
a current vpFREE discussion. This is a gray area, which I
try to enforce as fairly as I can.
Also, generally, vpFREE posting sanctions are handled
privately with the sanctionee.
vpFREE Administrator
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (20) |
Got some more posts for you. Hope you enjoy them!
Day 2 continued
Traveling the Wonky Willy Hershey Highway *http://tinyurl.com/ok37lf4
<http://tinyurl.com/ok37lf4>*
The Space Between Marilyn Monroe's Breasts *http://tinyurl.com/osdat5h
<http://tinyurl.com/osdat5h>*
Day 3
They Call Me Mr. Pitiful *http://tinyurl.com/oy3pu65
<http://tinyurl.com/oy3pu65>*
Reverend Tabernacle's Old Tyme Half and Half Hooker Spray
*http://tinyurl.com/p82wonc
<http://tinyurl.com/p82wonc>*
Notwithstanding Understanding What Notwithstanding Means
*http://tinyurl.com/nher3xa
<http://tinyurl.com/nher3xa>*
--
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 (4) |
Bob, I figure you've probably heard of Alan Mendelson. He's a B celebrity and a pretty strong businessman. But when it comes to gambling and the math of it he is somewhat unusual. I once explained to him in detail how accumulator slots like the IGT Vision Series work and how one can exploit short term advantages on them. He called me a crackpot with bad science. He said I was trying to pull a fast one on him. LOL!
He thinks I'm a fraud. So I told him that if he ever took a Montana vacation I would be glad to let him follow me around for a few days and he can report back to everyone else whether I'm a fraud or not. He totally ignored the invitation.
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (12) |
My money is on Shack, speaking of which, he is a proponent of Kelly:
The Kelly Criterion - Wizard of Odds http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
The Kelly Criterion - Wizard of Odds http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/ The Wizard of Odds on the Kelly Criterion.
View on wizardofo... http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/
Preview by Yahoo
[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 (11) |
This is my own simple explanation of why the answer to the question is 1 in 11, not 1 in 6. A two dice game is perfectly symmetrical. There are 36 total outcomes (6X6):
1 combination makes a total of 2.
2 combinations make a total of 3.
3 combinations make a total of 4.
4 combinations make a total of 5
5 combinations make a total of 6.
6 combinations make a total of 7.
5 combinations make a total of 8.
4 combinations make a total of 9.
3 combinations make a total of 10.
2 combinations make a total of 11.
1 combinations make a total of 12.
That totals to 36 possible outcomes. Why is there 2 combinations that make a total of 11? You specifically have to roll a six and a five. Wouldn't that be just one combination? No. The reason is because the 11 can come in two different orders. Die A can be the six and die B can be the five. Or, Die A can be the five and die B can be the six. It doesn't matter if the roll is six-five, or six-four or 2-5 or 3-4. The same is true for all of these examples.
Here are the combinations that the Wiz will gain 1 point with:
2-6, 6-2
2-5, 5-2
2-4, 4-2
2-3, 3-2
2-1, 1-2
The 1 in 6 crowd says that "if at least one of the dice is a two then it is 1 in 6 that the other die will be a 2. Take a look at the above ten combinations again. Notice that in all of them "at least one of the dice is a 2."
This is why the Wiz will beat anyone who gambles with him at this game.
[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 (10) |
NOTI wrote: Dan wrote: "I also pay absolutely no attention to the Kelly criterion for video
poker, but for a different reason. Kelly works well for games with near
even odds and payoffs such as blackjack, but it's very misleading on
games with widely skewed odds such as video poker."
OK, I guess, whatever you say. I think anyone who knows even a little
bit about Kelly would understand that the above statement represents
someone who knows very little about Kelly. The history of Kelly shows it
has been used successfully in a wide spectrum of activities, so the
notion that it is limited to blackjack is rather quaint.
"Rather quaint," is your description, not mine.
Happily, Dan's post comes with a special bonus that far surpasses whatever "quaintness" it exhibits.
It's his second post in two weeks in which he has promoted his software. That puts him in violation of the rules around here and allows us all to find out what kind of penalty the administrator will invoke!
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 (19) |
Dan wrote: "I also pay absolutely no attention to the Kelly criterion for video
poker, but for a different reason. Kelly works well for games with near
even odds and payoffs such as blackjack, but it's very misleading on
games with widely skewed odds such as video poker."
OK, I guess, whatever you say. I think anyone who knows even a little bit about Kelly would understand that the above statement represents someone who knows very little about Kelly. The history of Kelly shows it has been used successfully in a wide spectrum of activities, so the notion that it is limited to blackjack is rather quaint.
Dan wrote: "I recommend using the Sorokin formula. Instead of giving guidelines, it
gives very accurate figures on risk of ruin. The formula is difficult to
evaluate by hand, but it's implemented in Optimum Video Poker."
The Jazbo/Sorokin formula is nice, I use it a lot, but there are three problems with the Jazbo/Sorokin formula:
1. It assumes play forever. For the non-infinite human timespan you need something like Dunbar's Risk Analyzer.
2. What do you do if any risk of bankruptcy is unacceptable? In other words, what if your desired ROR is 0%? Other than an infinite bankroll, Jazbo/Sorokin has no answer to that question, Kelly does. Kelly answers the question of how do you play without going bankrupt and on a finite bankroll.
3. What is an optimal betsize or in the case of Jazbo/Sorokin, what is the optimal level of risk? Jazbo/Sorokin has no answer to this question, Kelly does.
I have to say, I find all of this Kelly bashing, well, interesting. As a side note, some readers might ask, who is this Jazbo? Well, I can tell you one thing, he wrote the webpage on "Kelly betting for Video Poker" back in 1998, and, as it's math based, it's still valid today:
Kelly Betting for Video Poker http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
Kelly Betting for Video Poker http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html 9/6 DB/DJ 9/6 Double Bonus with Double Jackpot. This game is appearing in Atlantic City. It is slightly positive even without cash back, but beware the variance! Pick'em
View on www.jazbo.com http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
Preview by Yahoo
[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 (18) |
This is what Alan is going to be up against in the dice challenge. The Wiz is expected to get to 25 points by the 90th roll. Excluding the one combination that makes 2-2, there are 10 combinations out of 36 that will gain the Wiz one point. Thats an average of one point every 3.6 rolls. So 3.6 times 25. Points is 90 rolls.
Meanwhile, Alan's expectation is to get to 25 points in 144 rolls. There is only one hard 4 on the dice, so the frequency is 36 times 4 = 144.
Alan will be a major dog in this contest. He will have to average a hard 4 about every 20 rolls or so to have any chance of winning.
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (9) |
I'm no longer associated with that product, but I couldn't help but notice that --- with just a tiny bit of imagination required --- that WinPoker is prominently mentioned about 3/4 of the way into the second paragraph
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/may/27/world-series-poker-five-pressing-colossus-question/
[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) |
Mick wrote: Alan Mendelsen, a strong proponent of 1 in 6, insisted the Wiz would get
his clock cleaned in such a game. The Wiz told him to put his money
where his mouth is. Alan objected to gambling with other individuals on
moral grounds. So the Wiz made a new proposal. When at least 1 of the
dice is a two, if the other die is a two Alan would be awarded 8
points. If the other die wasn't a 2 the Wiz would be awarded 1 point.
The first person to get to 25 points wins and the loser has to buy
lunch.
Alan accepted the challenge and believes he will win the bet. I thought
this was some brilliant hustling by the Wiz. I've never really given
him any credit for street smarts until now. If Alan rolls the hard 4
three times he will only have 24 points. He will have to roll it one
more time to win.
I don't know Alan Mendelsen --- but if he is a big fan of Shack's and hasn't been able to spend any time with Mike, then he might gladly buy Shack lunch just for the opportunity to chat with Shack for an hour or so.
If this is true about AM, then he is actually free-rolling Michael! AM might win the bet, in which case he gets his lunch and Shack pays. He might lose (probable). But he still gets a lunch with Shack that he was willing to pay for anyway.
This is all speculation. I don't know the relationship between the two men at all. But it's very possible that both sides correctly figure they have the advantage!)
(BTW --- Wiz, Shack, Michael, and Mike are all the same guy! I used all names interchangeably when he was my co-host on GWAE, but it's fair to assume that not everybody knows that.)
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 (8) |
