Howdy
Is a lifetime bankroll the same as a long term bankroll?
Grumpy
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
yourself, the two are (were) definitely the same.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
Howdy
Is a lifetime bankroll the same as a long term bankroll?
When you lose your entire bankroll, and, depressed, you shoot
Gambling bankroll is the amount of your savings (you have savings,
right?) that you allocate to gambling. If you're a pro and know what
you're doing, it could be all of your savings, but it really shouldn't
be. If you don't know what your bankroll is, then it is probably all
the cash you can get your hands on, by pawning off everything and
selling your soul, etc. If you say, oh no, I'm not addicted to
gambling, I would definitely stop at X dollars, at least for a couple
of years until I built my savings back up (you do save, right?), well
then X is your bankroll. If you're smart, you Kelly bet, a lot of
people do this naturally. Say for example, your gambling bankroll is
eight thousand. You should go play quarter deuces. If you don't make
any mistakes and get lucky and double up your bankroll before the
casino notices and tries to shake you down for your bankroll, it's
time to move up to fidy-cent deuces. But if your bankroll dribbles
down to four thousand, either because of bad luck or you've got a leak
somewhere, it's time to move down to nickel deuces, 12 coins in. If
your rich uncle dies and leaves you his bankroll, you can move up, on
the other hand if your daughter convinces you to pay for her wedding,
you get to move down, etc. It's not rocket science and there's no
magic, it takes money to win money. When you get to the point that you
can live off the interest your bankroll generates, then you have
financial freedom.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, BANDSTAND54@... wrote:
Howdy
Is a lifetime bankroll the same as a long term bankroll?
Grumpy
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
If you're smart, you Kelly bet, a lot of people do this naturally.
Say for example, your gambling bankroll is eight thousand. You should
go play quarter deuces. If you don't make any mistakes and get lucky
and double up your bankroll before the casino notices and tries to
shake you down for your bankroll, it's time to move up to fidy-cent
deuces. But if your bankroll dribbles down to four thousand, either
because of bad luck or you've got a leak somewhere, it's time to move
down to nickel deuces, 12 coins in.
I'm not reexamining my numbers, but I had the impression that Kelly
betting would be much more aggressive than this. You aren't terribly
specific, but since a deuces game with a strong return can be
inferred, I'm assuming that you're talking about playing $.25 FPDW
(say w/ .2% added cash incentive). In that case, it's my impression
that a Kelly jump to $.50 play would be called for well before
achieving a $16K bankroll (perhaps at as little as $8K).
Of course, it's the inelasticity of vp game supply (i.e., you can't
readily find a game/paytable in all desired denominations) that makes
Kelly betting awkward for vp. As for your suggestion that Kelly
betting comes naturally for a lot of people, I'd have phrased it that
(at best) many people feel their way in the dark for a wager that
feels Kelly optimal ... and often fall far off the mark.
- Harry
I'm not reexamining my numbers, but I had the impression that Kelly
betting would be much more aggressive than this.
Betting double Kelly is pretty standard. At least in futures/forex.
I'm not sure if this applies to you or not, but you don't have to
exactly bet the Kelly number. You just don't want to overbet it. When
you overbet Kelly, you get less bankroll growth than maximum and you
get more risk. That's the fool's quadrant. If you underbet Kelly, you
get less bankroll growth but in exchange for less risk. That's called
risk management. I don't remember the exact Kelly number for 15/9/5
deuces, but Jazbo has a Perl script that generates it:
http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
Or you can be lazy like me and just go for the approximate value:
Aprox. Kelly = variance/advantage = 26/.0077 = about 3400 or about 4
royals. So this says you should never play without a minimum of a 4
royal bankroll pad to back it up. Doubling it to 8 royals is safer,
plus it gives you some headroom, since it's more likely you'll lose
some before you win. So, my recommendation, start with an 8 royal pad
(select the game based on your dollar bankroll amount) and if you fall
back to 4 royals (something like a 10% chance of happening even with
absolute computer perfect Bob Dancer class play), then you should drop
your bet in half, whereas if you get lucky and double up your
bankroll, you should move up in denomination. Repeat as necessary, so
you might go up and down a couple of times, hopefully eventually
you'll go up. If you read Dancer's "Million Dollar Video Poker",
that's basically what he did (though perhaps without knowing about
Kelly, and he probably overbet Kelly at times and just got lucky), he
started as a typical Vegas lowlife coupon hustler decked out in free
casino clothing pushing the rules to the limit and maybe sometimes
beyond back in 93, and today he's a hotshot multi-million dollar high
roller, just like those guys you see in the infomercials on TV.
You aren't terribly
specific, but since a deuces game with a strong return can be
inferred, I'm assuming that you're talking about playing $.25 FPDW
(say w/ .2% added cash incentive). In that case, it's my impression
that a Kelly jump to $.50 play would be called for well before
achieving a $16K bankroll (perhaps at as little as $8K).
8K would be about the absolute minimum to play $.50, and how long
would that last? One bet down and you're under again, and now
overbeting Kelly, exactly what you should not be doing. (You
understand that "bankroll" is a moving, not a fixed number?) Better to
build up some headroom before moving up. My recommendation: 16K (8
royals). If you wanted to be more agressive you could double your bets
at 6 royals (12K) but then go back down if you drop back to a 4 royal
pad. The key is that you never want to have less than about a 4 royal
pad, or whatever the exact Kelly number is. But more is always OK,
more than OK, it is also safer (less risk).
Of course, it's the inelasticity of vp game supply (i.e., you can't
readily find a game/paytable in all desired denominations) that makes
Kelly betting awkward for vp.
Well, for example, deuces mostly exists only in nickels, quarters and
maybe fifty cents. And maybe it's hard to find deuces above fifty
cents, or maybe not if you look around a bit. As you move up in
denomination, the good games will be harder to find, the reasons for
that should be obvious. But there are other games. You don't have to
limit yourself to deuces.
As for your suggestion that Kelly
betting comes naturally for a lot of people, I'd have phrased it that
(at best) many people feel their way in the dark for a wager that
feels Kelly optimal ... and often fall far off the mark.
Probably true, everyone wants to think of themselves as a high roller
even if their bankroll screams penny player.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
> You aren't terribly
> specific, but since a deuces game with a strong return can be
> inferred, I'm assuming that you're talking about playing $.25
FPDW
> (say w/ .2% added cash incentive). In that case, it's my
impression
> that a Kelly jump to $.50 play would be called for well before
> achieving a $16K bankroll (perhaps at as little as $8K).8K would be about the absolute minimum to play $.50, and how long
would that last? One bet down and you're under again, and now
overbeting Kelly, exactly what you should not be doing. (You
understand that "bankroll" is a moving, not a fixed number?)
Better to
build up some headroom before moving up. My recommendation: 16K (8
royals). If you wanted to be more agressive you could double your
bets
at 6 royals (12K) but then go back down if you drop back to a 4
royal
pad. The key is that you never want to have less than about a 4
royal
pad, or whatever the exact Kelly number is. But more is always OK,
more than OK, it is also safer (less risk).
Here are some Kelly bankrolls of interest:
Harry's FPDW, with 0.2% cashback:
25c Kelly bankroll is $2785.
50c Kelly bankroll is $5570.
NOTI might be considering FPDW without cashback:
25c Kelly bankroll is $3655.
50c Kelly bankroll is $7310.
NOTI's suggested $16K bankroll for 50c FPDW would mean the player
was betting about half-kelly in a no-cashback game, and about 1/3
Kelly in a 0.2% cashback game.
Most pros I know underbet Kelly intentionally, for reasons NOTI has
mentioned. If you bet 1/2 the Kelly fraction, you still get
something like 75% of the bankroll growth.
Harry is correct that betting full Kelly requires a much more
aggressive bet-to-bankroll relationship than using a static RoR
measure. For example, if one played 25c FPDW, 0.2% cashback with a
$2785 bankroll (and kept playing, regardless of bankroll
fluctuation), the RoR is 15.1%. If you start with double the
recommended Kelly bankroll, then you lower the RoR to 2.3%. Of
course, not changing your bet size when bankroll fluctuates defeats
the whole idea of Kelly betting, but I'm giving these figs to
illustrate how aggressive Kelly betting is. (which I think is the
point both Harry and NOTI are making)
--Dunbar
In reference to discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/83445
Dunbar,
It's my guess that when you took the career aptitude exam in high
school these were among the highest ranked suggested vocations:
-- international conflict mediator
-- dispute resolution specialist
-- marriage counselor
- H. 
Thanks Dunbar and sorry Harry for the confusion, yes, I was ignoring
cashback.
So, Harry, what do you think of Kelly now? Not so aggressive? Also,
there are some new options that apply. For example there are games
where bets of 5 to 20 coins are not shorted on the royal. So, you
could start out at 10 coins with double Kelly, if your bankroll
dropped to 9/10's of double Kelly (10% drop), you would drop your bet
to 9 coins, whereas if your bankroll grew to 11/10's of double Kelly
(10% gain), you would increase your bet to 11 coins. A similar trick
can be done with the big multiplays (50, 100) though slightly
different since the variance is changing as well (as you change hands
played).
I must be mellowing, Harry. I've always thought I had a talent for
pissing off both sides of a discussion when I jumped in!
;>)
Dunbar
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
In reference to discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/83445Dunbar,
It's my guess that when you took the career aptitude exam in high
school these were among the highest ranked suggested vocations:-- international conflict mediator
-- dispute resolution specialist
-- marriage counselor- H.
dunbar_dra wrote:
I must be mellowing, Harry. I've always thought I had a talent for
pissing off both sides of a discussion when I jumped in!
That, I suspect, is because when you do, you're always right ... that
gets under the skin of some 
- H.