Kelly Optimal VP

[Rick_Bronstein]

Does this mean that I must commit to playing 371 hours at fpdw IF there
is 25% cashback to have 16% chance of losing? This assumes 700 hands per
hour.

What if I only play 15 hrs. per trip to Vegas 3 times a year? Does this
mean it will take 8.25 years for the "long run"?

Maybe this full play thing is too important to too many of us?

Just a thought.

···

At 12:25 PM 03/17/2004, you wrote:

max bankroll growth strategy also minimizes the number of hands that
must be played to reach 84% chance of success (one measure of "long
term"):

variance / (1-ER)^2

ex1: fpdw +0.25% cashback, ER=1.01, Variance=26, number of hands that
must be played to reach 84% chance of not losing: 260,000

ex2: 10/7 db +0.66% cashback, ER=1.008, Variance=28, number of hands
that must be played to reach 84% chance of not losing: 437,500

ex3: 15/10 ldw, ER=1.01, Variance=70, number of hands that must be
played to reach 84% chance of not losing: 700,000

ex4: 10/7 db, ER=1.0017, Variance=28, number of hands that must be
played to reach 84% chance of not losing: 9,688,581

vpFREE Links:

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

[bobinreno2000]

Does this mean that I must commit to playing 371 hours at fpdw IF

there

is 25% cashback to have 16% chance of losing? This assumes 700

hands per

hour.

yup

What if I only play 15 hrs. per trip to Vegas 3 times a year? Does

this

mean it will take 8.25 years for the "long run"?

yup

Maybe this full play thing is too important to too many of us?
Just a thought.

Well, you could play more. And even in the short term, full pay
machines do better than short pay. But yes, if your expectation is to
be a winner, you will have to play more.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rick Bronstein <rick@g...> wrote: