vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's LVA - 19 MAY 2015

#1

criterion when I play video poker today? NONE AT ALL."

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.

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.

Dan

···

Bob wrote on going broke: "How much attention do I pay to the Kelly

--
Dan Paymar, developer of "Optimum Video Poker" software
Visit my web site at http://www.OptimumPlay.com
"Chance favors the prepared mind" ~ Louis Pasteur

#2

Bob doesn't pay attention to kelly because he is way overbankrolled for what he is doing. I don't pay attention to kelly because I'm way overbankrolled for what I'm doing.

#3

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]

#4

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]

#5

Bob Dancer wrote:
<<Happily, Dan's post comes with a special bonus...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!>>

I happily appreciated Dan’s contribution to the Kelly criterion thread even though I don’t personally use Kelly myself. His mention of what his software could do in this area was very appropriate and on topic, giving us another choice and point of view. It was not a “promotional” post since it directly related to the subject being discussed and therefore was not breaking any rules. Dan is a real gentleman and I always find his posts polite, with the purpose of giving good math-based information.

We can – and do – disagree on this forum about some of the issues – but personal insults are never appropriate....or helpful.

···

------------------------------------------
Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
UPDATED TAX BOOK
(Download 2015 eBook now)

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

#6

Queenie wrote: We can – and do – disagree on this forum about some of the issues – but personal insults are never appropriate....or helpful.

I didn't see any personal insults --- but then again I never claimed to be an English teacher

I suggest you check Dan's former posts. My rough estimate is more than 75% of his posts over the past five years (and this year as well) all have the subtext of "buy my products."

If you think hes a gentleman, Jean, and want to buy multiple copies of all his stuff, go right ahead (although that would be a rather un-frugal thing to do.) But everybody else on this forum who wants his materials probably already has whatever they want.

If Dan has constructive things to say on this forum, it's his right (currently) to say them. But if the vast majority of his posts are self-promoting, those of us who don't appreciate that should have a right to speak up.

You can accurately say I'm disrespectful of Dan's contributions here. But you are not correct in saying I've personally insulted him in this thread.

Bob

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

#7

It's entertaining to see the professionals getting into a who posts for profit squabble.

Let's face it, I for one don't think any of them would make any sort of a post if they didn't think it would help them professionally.
This is strictly an opinion that I hold, and I am just expressing it. I am just referring to Bob, Jean and Dan here. The few others that
make the occasional post don't strike me as being as heavily into self promotion.

I think that the rules as they stand are pretty reasonable, and a little promotion being mentioned as long as the main thoughts being expressed are germane to the discussion is O.K. as is stated in the rules.

Regards
A.P.

#8

A year or two ago, someone posted that he and his wife were doing a cruise out of NYC and one or both of them had never done the tourist thing here. I offered to show them a Chinatown Dim Sum meal. The response I got was that their time was worth $200 an hour. Those of us with normal day jobs can afford not to be as 'aggressive' as others who do this full time.

Rich

#9

Tell me we're talking about a hooker and pimp and I might grasp the logic ...

Otherwise, exactly what business did they intend to conduct in NYC in lieu of Dim Sum?

One's time is worth a given sum only if the alternate opportunity exists in the moment.

- H.

---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <cdgnpc@...> wrote :

A year or two ago, someone posted that he and his wife were doing a cruise out of NYC and one or both of them had never done the tourist thing here. I offered to show them a Chinatown Dim Sum meal. The response I got was that their time was worth $200 an hour. Those of us with normal day jobs can afford not to be as 'aggressive' as others who do this full time.

Rich

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