vpFREE2 Forums

Kelly Optimal VP Strategy

#1

This may apply to someone who is under-bankrolled
for the game they're playing, but it certainly isn't a
valid "general rule".

vpFae

···

On 3 Aug 2008 at 0:19, chungsterama wrote:

... TomSki at the time had just finished his TSI index
(many years before Dunbar would release his video poker software) and
when he redid the numbers, he discovered the correct play was based
on the lady's net worth. I forgot the exact number the lady needed
in order to go for the royal, but people don't understand that a
guaranteed winner is worth about twice the EV (this is the general
rule of bird in hand versus two in the bush).

#2

Just to clarify, the general rule would be the "certainty equivalence"
formula:

Certainty Equivalence = EV - Variance/(2x Bankroll)

http://www.google.com/search?q="certainty+equivalence"

···

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

On 3 Aug 2008 at 0:19, chungsterama wrote:

> ... TomSki at the time had just finished his TSI index
> (many years before Dunbar would release his video poker software) and
> when he redid the numbers, he discovered the correct play was based
> on the lady's net worth. I forgot the exact number the lady needed
> in order to go for the royal, but people don't understand that a
> guaranteed winner is worth about twice the EV (this is the general
> rule of bird in hand versus two in the bush).

This may apply to someone who is under-bankrolled
for the game they're playing, but it certainly isn't a
valid "general rule".

#3

Minor correction, the formula below is for the Kelly (optimized
bankroll growth) Certainty Equivalence.

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

>
>
> > ... TomSki at the time had just finished his TSI index
> > (many years before Dunbar would release his video poker

software) and

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2008 at 0:19, chungsterama wrote:
> > when he redid the numbers, he discovered the correct play was based
> > on the lady's net worth. I forgot the exact number the lady needed
> > in order to go for the royal, but people don't understand that a
> > guaranteed winner is worth about twice the EV (this is the general
> > rule of bird in hand versus two in the bush).
>
> This may apply to someone who is under-bankrolled
> for the game they're playing, but it certainly isn't a
> valid "general rule".

Just to clarify, the general rule would be the "certainty equivalence"
formula:

Certainty Equivalence = EV - Variance/(2x Bankroll)

http://www.google.com/search?q="certainty+equivalence"