vpFREE2 Forums

An Interesting Choice

#1

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild game
that I had never actually considered before. The progressive natural royal
payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in with
10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I thought I'd
never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and didn't
get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so, what choice
did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker and at the
standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the wild royal
(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200 coins
($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play was
clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a double shot
of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total the
optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the deuce and
going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that breakpoint,
without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis between 4000
and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice too many
times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert Wasteland of
St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for nothin'!)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild game
that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in with
10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so, what

choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker and

at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the wild

royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200 coins
($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play was
clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total the
optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis between

4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice too many
times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

Hi Ron

I am from STL also, and I think I can help you with your q.

since you have a choice of taking 125 coins (I assume for the wild
royal) or a choice of tossing the 2 and going for the Natural Royal at
$1800, all you have to do is divide the $1800 by 47 which is the odds
you will get the one card of the 47 available cards to match up and
get the Nat. Royal. That is $38.30 or 153 coins. So you certainly did
the correct EV choice, some will say take the 125 coins and that will
lower you volitility and also lower your EV at the same time.
Personally I go for EV, but there are many considerations for each
person, such as avail. bankroll, both on this trip and total bankroll
and how it will personally effect you to not get the 125 coins.

You have a good question and these type of situations come up quite
often where you have to chose between a High payout that will not
happen often or a lower payout that is more certain. It really helps
to be able to look at the two values and fiqure them out. Also
programs like VPSM or Frugal VP that produce strategy printouts come
in very handy for these situations. I will keep 2 or 3 diff. royal
value strategy cards handy so that if I run into a simular situation I
can consult the card that is closest to the actual value of the royal.

Hope you get the next one.
Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

#3

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild game
that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in with
10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so, what

choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker and

at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the wild

royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200 coins
($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play was
clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total the
optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis between

4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice too many
times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

Sorry I forgot to mention that when you hold the 4 to the Nat. Royal
you also have the chance of getting a Flush, a Straight, or a High
pair. you would need to add the values of each of these to get the
exact full value of holding the 4 to the royal, but the value of just
the royal was 153 coins and that justified going for it, the true
value is even higher. The breakpoint for the royal value only (not
including the other possible payouts is 125 x 47 or 5875 coins
($1468.75) but it is really much lower when you consider the other
winning hands. I feel like I am starting to sound like a BD column,
and I am not as qualified to do that, so I will stop now.

Hope this helps
Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

#4

Hey Ron,
I was playing .25 8-5 DDB (I know, crappy return) I was dealt a 9
thru king of clubs. The straight flush paid 250 and the royal 4000.
Long story short, I went for the royal and had the same outcome as
you. No guts, no glory.

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces

wild game

that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in

with

10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing).

I

pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so,

what choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker

and at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the

wild royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200

coins

($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play

was

clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total

the

optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis

between 4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice

too many

times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_fe_st/dollar_dam&e=1

···

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

#6

Thanks, Jim. That's just the info I was looking for! I didn't have VPSM
beforehand, but I definitely downloaded it immediately upon arrival back
home! It's definitely a nice supplement to WinPoker. I appreciate the info
very much.

And by the way, since you're from St. Louis also, is this city as barren of
decent Pay Schedules as I think, or are there some golden nuggets that might
be worth checking out? (no LV casino counterpart-reference intended).

Ameristar really seems to have gone completely South (unless I'm missing
something). Any place else worth checking out, or am I stuck with round
trip airline tickets to Vegas as the only decent alternative?

Best of luck to you.

Ron

···

-----Original Message-----
From: jimnkelli [mailto:jbecke…@…net]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:46 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: An Interesting Choice

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild game
that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in with
10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so, what

choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker and

at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the wild

royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200 coins
($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play was
clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total the
optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis between

4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice too many
times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

Hi Ron

I am from STL also, and I think I can help you with your q.

since you have a choice of taking 125 coins (I assume for the wild
royal) or a choice of tossing the 2 and going for the Natural Royal at
$1800, all you have to do is divide the $1800 by 47 which is the odds
you will get the one card of the 47 available cards to match up and
get the Nat. Royal. That is $38.30 or 153 coins. So you certainly did
the correct EV choice, some will say take the 125 coins and that will
lower you volitility and also lower your EV at the same time.
Personally I go for EV, but there are many considerations for each
person, such as avail. bankroll, both on this trip and total bankroll
and how it will personally effect you to not get the 125 coins.

You have a good question and these type of situations come up quite
often where you have to chose between a High payout that will not
happen often or a lower payout that is more certain. It really helps
to be able to look at the two values and fiqure them out. Also
programs like VPSM or Frugal VP that produce strategy printouts come
in very handy for these situations. I will keep 2 or 3 diff. royal
value strategy cards handy so that if I run into a simular situation I
can consult the card that is closest to the actual value of the royal.

Hope you get the next one.
Jim

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#7

ROFL! Believe it or not, halfway through your third sentence, I was
thinking, "Gee, I feel like I'm reading a BD column..." And then you went
ahead and confirmed it for me!

You're right. It does change things a bit to have the possibility of the
straight and flush in addition to the natural royal. Leave it to me to pull
a 6 off-suit.

Elton

···

-----Original Message-----
From: jimnkelli [mailto:jbecke…@…net]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 7:58 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: An Interesting Choice

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild game
that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in with
10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so, what

choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker and

at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the wild

royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200 coins
($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play was
clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total the
optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis between

4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice too many
times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

Sorry I forgot to mention that when you hold the 4 to the Nat. Royal
you also have the chance of getting a Flush, a Straight, or a High
pair. you would need to add the values of each of these to get the
exact full value of holding the 4 to the royal, but the value of just
the royal was 153 coins and that justified going for it, the true
value is even higher. The breakpoint for the royal value only (not
including the other possible payouts is 125 x 47 or 5875 coins
($1468.75) but it is really much lower when you consider the other
winning hands. I feel like I am starting to sound like a BD column,
and I am not as qualified to do that, so I will stop now.

Hope this helps
Jim

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#8

Hey Ron,
I was playing .25 8-5 DDB (I know, crappy return) I was dealt a 9
thru king of clubs. The straight flush paid 250 and the royal 4000.
Long story short, I went for the royal and had the same outcome as
you. No guts, no glory.

***I couldn't have said it better myself. Personally, and irregardless of
any difference in EV between the two hands (well... almost irregardless,
anyway) I just wouldn't sleep as soundly if I'd played it safe and never
found out what was behind that card.

I guess there are those for whom towing the line precisely according to the
EV would make them lose sleep if they knew it was $1 below the breakpoint of
the progressive and they'd gone for the natural royal anyway and wound up
losing the 125 coins (for the wild royal). But I'm just not psychologically
built that way. Damn the torpedos, man! Full-speed ahead!!!

Ron

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces

wild game

that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in

with

10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing).

I

pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so,

what choice

did you make?"

After I returned home, I ran an analysis of the hand in WinPoker

and at the

standard royal pay of 4000 coins, the best play was to hold the

wild royal

(quick, get the Pepto Bismol !!). But when I changed it to 7200

coins

($1800.00) for the natural royal progressive payout, the best play

was

clearly to go for the natural royal flush (whew.quick, get me a

double shot

of Jamison's on the rocks!). So my second question is.

"Does anybody know at what specific point in the progressive total

the

optimum play changes from holding the wild royal to discarding the

deuce and

going for the natural? If so, is there a way to calculate that

breakpoint,

without just taking arbitrary pot-shots in WinPoker analysis

between 4000

and 7200 coins?"

Of course I don't anticipate being dealt this particular choice

too many

times in my VP Lifetime, but then again, you never know...

Thanks for the input!

EltonRon (a.k.a. "Temporarily stuck in the VP Pay Table Desert

Wasteland of

St. Louis, MO". They don't call it the "Muddy Mississippi" for

nothin'!)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

···

-----Original Message-----
From: diversified_slave [mailto:diversified_sl…@…com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:03 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: An Interesting Choice

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

#9

I encountered exactly the same scenario at Motor City while chasing a
$2,200 progressive on their NSUD quarters last week. Dealt 10h-Jh-Qh-
Kh and a deuce. I also went for it, figuring that it just had to be
the EV-correct play (it was). Drew the 9h for a natural straight
flush. Ohhhhhhh, the pain.....

As an aside, I didn't hit that progressive. About an hour after the
hand described above, the guy next to me hit it - by holding a single
ace and drawing the other 4 cards.

- Brian in MI

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild

game

that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in

with

10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so,

what choice

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

did you make?"

#10

My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so,

what choice did you make?"

The very first time I was in this situation where the progressive
level justified throwing away the deuce, I threw it away and
drew.......another deuce! to get my wild royal back.

EE

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

#11

As others have noted you made the "right" choice. I also ran into
this situation playing triple play NSUD with the AVERAGE progressive
over $1500. Instead of giving up 125 credits I now had to give up 375
for 3 chances at the RF. Alas, I went for it and failed on all three
lines (although I did get another deuce on one line).

It was a tough choice then and would be just as tough the next the
time it happens. If my mind is working this AM, it should occur about
every 2700*12 =~ 32,000 dealt hands. I hope when it does happen the
progressive is low enough ...

This may be one of those hands that separates the true gamblers from
the rest of the pack (where I'm firmly entrenched). If the
progressive was right on the break even value where the long term (?)
difference is minimal what would the rest of you do?

Dick

Hey Everybody-

I just encountered a situation in a 25-cent progressive deuces wild

game

that I had never actually considered before. The progressive

natural royal

payout had grown to $1800.00 and I was dealt a wild royal flush in

with

10c-Jc-Qc-Kc and a single 2d (only the Ace of Clubs was missing). I
pondered it for a moment and then found myself doing something I

thought I'd

never do. I discarded the Deuce, to go for the natural royal (and

didn't

get it). My first question is.

"Has anyone else found themselves in this situation and, if so,

what choice

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ron McGowan" <eltonron@i...> wrote:

did you make?"

#12

rgmustain wrote:

This may be one of those hands that separates the true gamblers from
the rest of the pack (where I'm firmly entrenched). If the
progressive was right on the break even value where the long term
(?) difference is minimal what would the rest of you do?

That's a no-brainer for me. Entering into vp with an investor's
mentality, I expect incremental return when assuming greater risk.
I'll pocket the sure thing (WRF in this case) ... I'm patient when it
comes to the jackpots.

- Harry

#13

This may be one of those hands that separates the true gamblers

from

the rest of the pack (where I'm firmly entrenched). If the
progressive was right on the break even value where the long term

(?)

difference is minimal what would the rest of you do?

kelly criterion says you should only take that bet if your bankroll is
at least the sure thing (25-1 bets for a wrf) times the progressive

kelly bet = (er-1)/variance x bankroll
kelly bankroll (11%ror)= variance/(er-1) bets
faq's:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#14

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

> This may be one of those hands that separates the true gamblers
from
> the rest of the pack (where I'm firmly entrenched).

I humbly admit take I would take the bird in hand.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:

#15

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

kelly criterion says you should only take that bet if your bankroll is
at least the sure thing (25-1 bets for a wrf) times the progressive

kelly bet = (er-1)/variance x bankroll
kelly bankroll (11%ror)= variance/(er-1) bets
faq's:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm

I suspect there are several falacies here.
The most basic one I see is that the wager involved here is 125 Cr.
with an Ev of 125 cr., or an ER of 1. There's no defined bankroll, no
defined kelly bet.

- H.

#16

wager is 25 bets, wild royal returns 25 bets
er, variance ... everything is expressed in bets
25-1 is incorrect, it should just be 25
there is always a defined bankroll, that is the amount of running loss
at which you will quit forever
approximately:
average value = prog/47
variance = (prog^2)/47
therefore kelly bet = prog/47 x 47/prog^2 x bankroll
if kelly bet >= 25 then you should take the bet
kelly bet >=25 when bankroll >= 25 x prog

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
> kelly criterion says you should only take that bet if your

bankroll is

> at least the sure thing (25-1 bets for a wrf) times the

progressive

>
> kelly bet = (er-1)/variance x bankroll
> kelly bankroll (11%ror)= variance/(er-1) bets
> faq's:
> http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm

I suspect there are several falacies here.
The most basic one I see is that the wager involved here is 125 Cr.
with an Ev of 125 cr., or an ER of 1. There's no defined bankroll,

no

···

defined kelly bet.

- H.

#17

alright, take 2:
best way to answer this sort of question is the certainty equivalence:
CE=EV - Var/2xBankroll
in this case certainty is 25 bets for a wild royal, so:
Bankroll > Var/(2(EV-25))
meaning that if the bankroll is greater than this value then this bet
should be taken (breaking up a wild royal to draw one to a royal)

this can be solved for say an nsud progressive of 1300 bets:
EV=(33x0+3x3+7x4+3x25+1x1300)/47=30
Var=(33x(0-30)^2+3x(3-30)^2+7x(4-30)^2+3x(25-30)^2+1x(1300-30)^2)/47=
  35,640
Bankroll > 35,640/(2(30-25))= 3,564 bets

#18

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

alright, take 2:
best way to answer this sort of question is the certainty
equivalence:
CE=EV - Var/2xBankroll
in this case certainty is 25 bets for a wild royal, so:
Bankroll > Var/(2(EV-25))
meaning that if the bankroll is greater than this value then this
bet should be taken (breaking up a wild royal to draw one to a
royal)

this can be solved for say an nsud progressive of 1300 bets:
EV=(33x0+3x3+7x4+3x25+1x1300)/47=30

Var=(33x(0-30)^2+3x(3-30)^2+7x(4-30)^2+3x(25-30)^2+1x(1300-30)^2)/47
= 35,640
Bankroll > 35,640/(2(30-25))= 3,564 bets

I like this approach, iggy ... much better!

So, how 'bout an example along the lines originally suggested -- a
prog. meter where the EV for holding the WRF and for going for the RF
are identical (25 bets).

(I'm very curious about the outcome but am feeling a little lazy tonite :wink:

- H.

#19

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
> alright, take 2:
> best way to answer this sort of question is the certainty
> equivalence:
> CE=EV - Var/2xBankroll
> in this case certainty is 25 bets for a wild royal, so:
> Bankroll > Var/(2(EV-25))
> meaning that if the bankroll is greater than this value then this
> bet should be taken (breaking up a wild royal to draw one to a
> royal)
>
> this can be solved for say an nsud progressive of 1300 bets:
> EV=(33x0+3x3+7x4+3x25+1x1300)/47=30
>
> Var=(33x(0-30)^2+3x(3-30)^2+7x(4-30)^2+3x(25-3

0)^2+1x(1300-30)^2)/47

> = 35,640
> Bankroll > 35,640/(2(30-25))= 3,564 bets

I like this approach, iggy ... much better!

So, how 'bout an example along the lines originally suggested -- a
prog. meter where the EV for holding the WRF and for going for the

RF

are identical (25 bets).

(I'm very curious about the outcome but am feeling a little lazy

tonite :wink:

- H.

if you have an infinite bankroll, it's 50/50
for anything less than an infinite bankroll you should go for the sure
thing of course (keep the wrf)
we're back to the case of an even gamble, 25 bets in results in an
average of 25 bets out, a sucker bet unless you have an infinite
bankroll (or at least very large compared to your opponent) and time
on your hands to grind out the variance
note in this case you don't even earn any additional comps

#20

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

if you have an infinite bankroll, it's 50/50
for anything less than an infinite bankroll you should go for the
sure thing of course (keep the wrf)
we're back to the case of an even gamble, 25 bets in results in an
average of 25 bets out, a sucker bet unless you have an infinite
bankroll (or at least very large compared to your opponent) and time
on your hands to grind out the variance
note in this case you don't even earn any additional comps

Ok, now we're on the same wavelength.

I noted a finance analogy in my original reply. In that case,
investors in a project with high variance face a higher default risk
than one with the same return but lower variance (i.e. more certainty
that actual return will fall close to the expected return). Thus,
given a choice between the two investments they'll only opt for the
greater risk one if it offers an incrementally higher return to reduce
default risk appropriately.

This manifested itself in Trump's original high debt cost before the
recent restructuring. Infusion of capital has reduced the default
risk on the new debt and thus it's at a considerably smaller rate.

It's a relationship that can also be found in historical stock
returns. The risk factor, past price volatility, is measured as a
stock "beta" and there's a strong correlation between the past return
of a stock and its beta. The adage "buy on the rumor, sell on the
news" reflects the fact that uncertainly reduces stock prices vs. it's
adjusted inherent value / certainty restores (increases) the stock
price to that value (even when the actual outcome is identical to the
rumored one).

···

------

Returning to this gambling case, for any given bankroll the added risk
of going the RF increases the player's risk of ruin (ROR) vs. taking
the sure thing unless the RF shot presents a sufficient incremental
return. If the expected value is identical, then the prudent decision
is to take the sure thing. The concept of certainty equivalence,
which was the basis of your revised response, provides a means to
determining an appropriate incremental return requied for a higher
risk bet/game.

But, that's not to suggest that a player who prefers a riskier game
over s safer one, despite an inferior return (say, 9/7 DB vs. 9/6
Jacks) is necessarily behaving irrationally. While it's true that
they're accepting higher risk without compensating return, another
economic principal that's key to a person's choices in life comes into
play -- utility theory. To whatever extent the higher volatile game
results in greater play satisfaction/enjoyment, a sacrifice of
commensurate return is a reasonable response (but by commensurate,
that means that they fully offset that satisfaction with the greater
prospect of ultimately suffering the disappointment of ruin --
something that in actuality usually isn't given due respect).

The happiest of all situations, of course, is where player utility and
CE criteria are both satisfied by playing a game with desired
volatility that also has a greater return over less volatile choices.

I'll step off the soapbox :wink:

- Harry