vpFREE2 Forums

LVHilton $5 JoB

#1

Yeah, OK, "almost nil" was a bit strong. I've had longer quadless droughts, just not lately. Regardless, it was a 104.8% play, and I could afford to lose what I lost. NOT playing it would have been chicken-poop. I could have hit a royal. Hell, just getting the damn quad on schedule would have been sweet.

As far as the Kelly criterion goes, I can never really define "bankroll". How much was I willing to risk? About what I did: $4K. More than that, and I have anger-management issues. How much could I afford to risk? Many times that. How much could I lose before my wife strangled me for recklessly squandering our children's inheritance? Somewhere in between.

---- nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

···

Well, I think those who play a lot of video poker, I mean a lot of
video poker, over forty hours per week, can tell you just how bad the
quad droughts can get. Anyway, this particular coupon is a good
application for the Kelly bet. Kelly bet is bankroll times advantage
divided by variance. For example, if you were playing FPDW with a
$5,000 bankroll, kelly bet would be $5,000 x .0076 / 26 = $1.46/hand.
If you want to be conservative you can bet half Kelly.

Details are here:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm

#2

As far as the Kelly criterion goes, I can never really

define "bankroll". How much was I willing to risk? About what I did:
$4K. More than that, and I have anger-management issues. How much
could I afford to risk? Many times that. How much could I lose before
my wife strangled me for recklessly squandering our children's
inheritance? Somewhere in between.

Ahh, that would be the other Kelly Criterion?

Chandler

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <lodestone@...> wrote:

#3

"bankroll". How much was I willing to risk? About what I did: $4K.
More than that, and I have anger-management issues. How much could I
afford to risk? Many times that. How much could I lose before my wife
strangled me for recklessly squandering our children's inheritance?
Somewhere in between.

Defining bankroll (stop loss limit) is very important, it separates
the rational gamblers from the addicted gamblers. It certainly isn't
"how much can your afford" because in the US everyone seems to think
they can afford anything with the miracle of easy credit. The point
where "anger-management issues" kick in is very important, and so is
the point where the spouse will never let you forget it. Sounds to me
like your bankroll is $4K.

If you don't know what your bankroll is, you might have a gambling
addiction:
http://www.addictionrecov.org/southoak.htm

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly <lodestone@...> wrote:

As far as the Kelly criterion goes, I can never really define

#4

John Kelly wrote:

Yeah, OK, "almost nil" was a bit strong. I've had longer quadless
droughts, just not lately. Regardless, it was a 104.8% play, and I
could afford to lose what I lost. NOT playing it would have been
chicken-poop.

Maybe not "almost nil", but for 4 hours (say 4K hands) you're looking
at a 1 in 10,000 prospect of not hitting. Put 10,000 other souls in
the seats next you and you're the odd man out (hypothetically ...
well, maybe not that "odd man" part).

But I never sensed you felt that you met with a fate that was entirely
out of bounds relative to the odds you perceived up front -- just
frustrated at not hitting what felt like a "sure thing" (as most of us
would have been).

- H.

#5

I don't see how it was a 104.8% play, but if you calculated that right shouldn't you have been playing the $25 or higher machine? Who cares what the wife thinks?
   
  Harry Porter, I think we all think it's a sure thing whenever we play. It just doesn't turn out that way as we leave.

          John Kelly wrote:

Yeah, OK, "almost nil" was a bit strong. I've had longer quadless
droughts, just not lately. Regardless, it was a 104.8% play, and I
could afford to lose what I lost. NOT playing it would have been
chicken-poop.

Maybe not "almost nil", but for 4 hours (say 4K hands) you're looking
at a 1 in 10,000 prospect of not hitting. Put 10,000 other souls in
the seats next you and you're the odd man out (hypothetically ...
well, maybe not that "odd man" part).

But I never sensed you felt that you met with a fate that was entirely
out of bounds relative to the odds you perceived up front -- just
frustrated at not hitting what felt like a "sure thing" (as most of us
would have been).

- H.

···

Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
       
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

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

#6

Oh my, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are
single, LOL.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Donnie Boland <dboland000@...> wrote:

I don't see how it was a 104.8% play, but if you calculated that

right shouldn't you have been playing the $25 or higher machine? Who
cares what the wife thinks?