vpFREE2 Forums

vtroy216 · January 14, 2020, 5:48pm

I have a much simpler, equally articulate way to put all this video poker mensa: OMG!!

···

----- Reply message -----
From: "harry.porter@verizon.net [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Bankroll question
Date: Fri, Jan 23, 2015 1:05 PM

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]

Harry_Porter · January 14, 2020, 7:23pm

vtroy216 wrote :

I have a much simpler, equally articulate way to put all this video poker mensa: OMG!!

···

------------

That's worthy of a chuckle

vtroy (have a more "user-friendly" handle?) -- I've been following this thread over the last few days but haven't had the opportunity to post. I'll observe that I view the feedback that you've garnered to be of as much practical use as if you were to sit down at a slot bank and listen in as a couple of senile gents debated keno strategy.

I'm not questioning the quality of the knowledge imparted ... just suggesting that it, along with a couple of bucks, might get you a cup of coffee in the context of what's likely most helpful to your play.

--------------

So, a little belated feedback. You earlier posted:

vtroy216 wrote :

--> It would probably be an interesting poll about how many of us use risk-of-ruin calculations and concerns when we go on a trip or casino visits, vs. how many of us just play with whatever we can afford to lose. I've always believed putting too much thought into something that's fun is the best route to Killjoy. <--

----

The truth is that so long as the bulk of your play sits in a realm of games/denoms with which you have much experience, and you're very comfortable with the bankroll swings you encounter, you likely don't have much of a requirement to consult risk-of-ruin or other statistically based calculations in order to profitably enjoy satisfying play. Your own gut is likely your soundest guide.

But, occasionally, some players (myself included) can be intrigued in short-term higher risk opportunities and with hard-earned resources at stake, it's prudent to to into such a venture with a reasonable idea of what's really at risk. To do so blindly is to invite a bitter case of "gambler's remorse".

I'm thinking of examples I've encountered in the past:

-- A one time promotion that required play above my usual denomination which, provided you hit a given play threshold, had an ER of 102.5%. (After consulting bankroll risk, both I and Bev gave it run with a fantastic bankroll boost outcome.)

-- A sustained opportunity at a casino with an ER of 101.5% that involved denomination double that at which I only occasionally ventured into. (Again, after review ROR bankroll numbers, I satisfied myself that I could reasonably take the play on, with very gratifying results.)

------

Addressing your "Killjoy" remark: It's never prudent to obsess over technicalities if it spoils the ride. But when something of dear value is on the table, sometimes it pays to sweat the details in the interest of ensuring that it stays there.

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