Full House vs Three Aces in 10/7 DB

[C11]

I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don't claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don't doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[Harry_Porter]

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH ... a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).
Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 "sure win" didn't make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game.  Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

···

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

I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don't claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don't doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[007]

clementiyn wrote:

I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

I'd look at it as playing a hand that's risking $35.

Theoretically, correct strategy, based on the Kelly Criterion, changes
after each change in bankroll. Many players don't play games that are
over their bankroll, but then their approach to strategy assumes their
bankroll is infinite.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

Most people playing dollar 10/7/5 DB +.2% probably don’t have the bankroll for it either:

Perfect Play:

$5 x 28 / (.0017+.002) = $37,838 minimum

0.2% Error Rate:

$5 x 28 / (.0017+.002-.002) = $82,353 minimum

···

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I’m sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh…

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let’s say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don’t claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don’t doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

Sure, the occasional dopamine hit from quad aces feels like “fun”, but the more likely outcome is burning $35 and the cortisol/stress hit that goes with that. So, the overall question is: does the rare dopamine hit from breaking aces full and drawing quad aces compensate for the frequent cortisol hits of missing the draw? As far as the Kelly system goes, it’s just cold mathematics, you are either taking too much risk for your current bankroll or you are not. Of course “too much bankroll risk” is likely to end in a nasty bout of cortisol/stress/bankroll-shrinkage and not the final dopamine hit you were hoping for after all. Read “Fortune’s Formula” if you want real life stories of what happens when Mr. Kelly’s math is ignored.

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH … a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).

Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 “sure win” didn’t make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

···

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I’m sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh…

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let’s say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don’t claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don’t doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[Harry_Porter]

noti, fwiw, the real crux of my post was that attempting to moderate the risk of 10/7 DB by holding FH over 3A is like trying to tame a house fire with a squirt gun …

You can go ahead and delve into the bankroll math on this one if you want, but it’s my guess that anyone who finds themselves sweating this particular hold and it’s impact on overall volatility is likely over their head in playing the game in the first place.

Sure, the occasional dopamine hit from quad aces feels like “fun”, but the more likely outcome is burning $35 and the cortisol/stress hit that goes with that. So, the overall question is: does the rare dopamine hit from breaking aces full and drawing quad aces compensate for the frequent cortisol hits of missing the draw? As far as the Kelly system goes, it’s just cold mathematics, you are either taking too much risk for your current bankroll or you are not. Of course “too much bankroll risk” is likely to end in a nasty bout of cortisol/stress/bankroll-shrinkage and not the final dopamine hit you were hoping for after all. Read “Fortune’s Formula” if you want real life stories of what happens when Mr. Kelly’s math is ignored.

···

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH … a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).

Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 “sure win” didn’t make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I’m sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh…

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let’s say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don’t claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don’t doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[haaljo_haaljo]

Distant memories of the Queen writing that she holds the trip aces. Must have been 20 years ago.

Maybe a brain fart but could have sworn she admitted to this guilty pleasure which I partake of.

Sure, the occasional dopamine hit from quad aces feels like “fun”, but the more likely outcome is burning $35 and the cortisol/stress hit that goes with that. So, the overall question is: does the rare dopamine hit from breaking aces full and drawing quad aces compensate for the frequent cortisol hits of missing the draw? As far as the Kelly system goes, it’s just cold mathematics, you are either taking too much risk for your current bankroll or you are not. Of course “too much bankroll risk” is likely to end in a nasty bout of cortisol/stress/bankroll-shrinkage and not the final dopamine hit you were hoping for after all. Read “Fortune’s Formula” if you want real life stories of what happens when Mr. Kelly’s math is ignored.

···

— In vpf…@…com, <nightoftheiguana2000@…> wrote:

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH … a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).

Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 “sure win” didn’t make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I’m sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh…

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let’s say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don’t claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don’t doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[Fannie]

At MSS with the scratchers, holding just the 3 aces is the correct play.

JAS

···

From: harry.por…@…net

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:14 PM

To: vpF…@…com

Subject: [vpFREE] RE: RE: RE: Full House vs Three Aces in 10/7 DB

noti, fwiw, the real crux of my post was that attempting to moderate the risk of 10/7 DB by holding FH over 3A is like trying to tame a house fire with a squirt gun …

You can go ahead and delve into the bankroll math on this one if you want, but it’s my guess that anyone who finds themselves sweating this particular hold and it’s impact on overall volatility is likely over their head in playing the game in the first place.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

Sure, the occasional dopamine hit from quad aces feels like “fun”, but the more likely outcome is burning $35 and the cortisol/stress hit that goes with that. So, the overall question is: does the rare dopamine hit from breaking aces full and drawing quad aces compensate for the frequent cortisol hits of missing the draw? As far as the Kelly system goes, it’s just cold mathematics, you are either taking too much risk for your current bankroll or you are not. Of course “too much bankroll risk” is likely to end in a nasty bout of cortisol/stress/bankroll-shrinkage and not the final dopamine hit you were hoping for after all. Read “Fortune’s Formula” if you want real life stories of what happens when Mr. Kelly’s math is ignored.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH … a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).
Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 “sure win” didn’t make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...



But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).



Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.



The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.



The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.



I don't claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don't doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[nightoftheiguana2000]

At MSS with the scratchers, holding just the 3 aces is the correct play.

JAS

···

At MSS with the scratchers, holding just the 3 aces is the correct play. The answer is “it depends”. In gambling, the answer is always “it depends”. — In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

From: harry.porter@…

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:14 PM

To: vpF…@…com

Subject: [vpFREE] RE: RE: RE: Full House vs Three Aces in 10/7 DB

noti, fwiw, the real crux of my post was that attempting to moderate the risk of 10/7 DB by holding FH over 3A is like trying to tame a house fire with a squirt gun …

You can go ahead and delve into the bankroll math on this one if you want, but it’s my guess that anyone who finds themselves sweating this particular hold and it’s impact on overall volatility is likely over their head in playing the game in the first place.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

Sure, the occasional dopamine hit from quad aces feels like “fun”, but the more likely outcome is burning $35 and the cortisol/stress hit that goes with that. So, the overall question is: does the rare dopamine hit from breaking aces full and drawing quad aces compensate for the frequent cortisol hits of missing the draw? As far as the Kelly system goes, it’s just cold mathematics, you are either taking too much risk for your current bankroll or you are not. Of course “too much bankroll risk” is likely to end in a nasty bout of cortisol/stress/bankroll-shrinkage and not the final dopamine hit you were hoping for after all. Read “Fortune’s Formula” if you want real life stories of what happens when Mr. Kelly’s math is ignored.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH … a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).
Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 “sure win” didn’t make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.

— In vpF…@…com, <vpf…@…com> wrote:

I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...



But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).



Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.



The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.



The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.



I don't claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don't doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

[fivespot]

interesting analogy, but i disagree with your conclusion.

the fallacy is in believing that $5/hand with VAR 28 and 0.3% edge requires a lower bankroll than $50/hand with VAR 10 and 1.15% edge. it doesn’t. bankroll requirement is directly related to variance, directly related to bet size, and inversely related to edge; decreasing variance by a factor of (almost) 3 and increasing edge by a factor of (almost) 4 almost exactly cancels out the increase in bet size by a factor of 10.

another way to look at it: compared to holding the full house, holding the three aces is worth 57 cents, with standard deviation of $158. you’d have to play 38 hands of $1 DB (28 VAR) at a 0.3% edge to make that same 57 cents, and the standard deviation of that play would be $5 * sqrt(28) * sqrt(38) = $163. choosing to break aces full requires slightly LESS risk tolerance than choosing to play this game to begin with.

i think the lesson here is that low-edge plays require way more bankroll than you might expect.

on the other hand, you only get dealt aces full once every 9000 hands or so. throwing away 57 cents every 10 hours of play is not going to break you. (it reduces overall return by like 0.001%.) so do whatever makes you happy; if you’re playing a $1 game with a 0.3% edge, it’s not like you’re doing it for the money.

cheers,

five

···

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, clementiyn <clement…@…com> wrote:

I’m sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh…

But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).

Let’s say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.

The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.

The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.

I don’t claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don’t doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.

---

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/)

<*> Your email settings:

Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join)

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:

vpFREE-dig...@...com

vpFREE-fullfeatu...@...com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

vpFREE-unsubscr...@...com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

[http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)

[Wayne_Stocks]

I think your thinking of 2-Pair at MSS.

“Normal” non-penalty strategy is :

3 Aces 50.54

Full House 50.00

2 Pair 8.83

Pair Aces 8.81

With the scratch cards at MSS holding 3 Aces is still the right play (even more so). Breaking two pair with Aces is now marginally the right decision assuming quarter play.