Ok, you guys lost me. My hypothetical questions:
Assume I play FPDW at a rate of 5000 hands per day on 25c no CB.
When I die will my estate have more money if I play MCR or MER?
Second scenario: Assume I play 5000 hands JOB per day on 25c and no
CB. When I die will my estate have more money left if I play MCR or
MER?
FWIW: Had Ah Kh X Jh X on 25c NSUD dealt to me. Got a sequential
royal. Unfortunately no bonus for sequential, but it sure was pretty.
DWK
As long as you don't bust out early, maxER produces the highest
average return per hand. Min-cost-royal and minROR reduces the chance
of busting out early.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
Ok, you guys lost me. My hypothetical questions:
Assume I play FPDW at a rate of 5000 hands per day on 25c no CB.
When I die will my estate have more money if I play MCR or MER?
Second scenario: Assume I play 5000 hands JOB per day on 25c and no
CB. When I die will my estate have more money left if I play MCR or
MER?FWIW: Had Ah Kh X Jh X on 25c NSUD dealt to me. Got a sequential
royal. Unfortunately no bonus for sequential, but it sure was pretty.DWK
ok, slight clarification: maxER always produces the highest average
per hand, but if you bust out early your estate will have no money.
minROR minimizes the risk of busting, kelly strategy maximizes the
rate of bankroll growth and is inbetween maxER and minROR, in theory
kelly is a no bust strategy but in practice you can only bet so low so
there is always some small chance of busting
http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
As long as you don't bust out early, maxER produces the highest
average return per hand. Min-cost-royal and minROR reduces the chance
of busting out early.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@>
wrote:
>
> Ok, you guys lost me. My hypothetical questions:
>
> Assume I play FPDW at a rate of 5000 hands per day on 25c no CB.
>
> When I die will my estate have more money if I play MCR or MER?
>
>
>
> Second scenario: Assume I play 5000 hands JOB per day on 25c
and no
> CB. When I die will my estate have more money left if I play MCR or
> MER?
>
>
>
> FWIW: Had Ah Kh X Jh X on 25c NSUD dealt to me. Got a sequential
> royal. Unfortunately no bonus for sequential, but it sure was pretty.
>
> DWK
>
Even though your talking about 91M+ hands over 50 years, we can still
only talk in terms of "liklihoods." This is, after all, still a game
of random chance. In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
come out better using MER.
It is very likely you would hit fewer royals using MCR for FPDW and
you would hit more royals on JOB, per my understanding. That is
because the royal is valued a little higher than normal on JOB and a
little lower than normal on FPDW using this strategy.
It's not the easiest concept I've ever tried to grasp. If that
didn't help, think of it this way (I think): Using MCR in JOB, you
will more aggressively pursue royals and actually lose faster between
royals, but also get to the royal faster. In FPDW, you will lose
slower between royals but take longer to get to the royal. At least
I think that's it.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
Ok, you guys lost me. My hypothetical questions:
Assume I play FPDW at a rate of 5000 hands per day on 25c no CB.
When I die will my estate have more money if I play MCR or MER?
Second scenario: Assume I play 5000 hands JOB per day on 25c and
no
CB. When I die will my estate have more money left if I play MCR
or
MER?
I don't believe so.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@...> wrote:
In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
come out better using MER.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
> In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
> come out better using MER.I don't believe so.
See, this is what I mean. Just as soon as I think I grasp it, a
contradictory post is made.
Either you make more money or you don't and which method makes more
money total. I am guessing that if MER makes more per hand, then
the total is also going to be higher (based on playing 5K hands per
day). So MER is more likely to build your nest egg.
Are we stumbling on the words "MUCH MORE LIKELY" If so, then I got
my answer. MER makes more money.
Is that true or not?
BTW, I am thanking all who are trying to help.
DWK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@> wrote:
If your bankroll is half the kelly number, minROR strategy produces
the best bankroll growth rate, if your bankroll is the kelly number,
then the strategy between minROR and maxER produces the best bankroll
growth rate, as your bankroll exceeds the kelly number, the best
strategy for bankroll growth approaches maxER. Kelly number can be
approximated by variance/(er+cashback-1) or exactly calculated. Jazbo
provides a calculator:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
MER makes more money.
Is that true or not?
Depends. You are forgeting the effect of risk of ruin.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm
Q1: What is wrong with maximizing your expected winnings?
A1: Although at first glance it seems obvious that it is best to
maximize the expected (i.e., predicted average) amount of your
winnings, this is in fact not true for most people. If this were
really your goal then whenever you had the slightest advantage you
would mortgage your house, car, and boat and bet your entire fortune.
Although this gives you the greatest net win, on average, this is
entirely too risky for most people.
OK, we're talking about 3/100 of a percent with JOB, and that's not
a huge #, but we're also talking about 91M hands.
There are no guarantees. If we both set about playing 91M hands,
you using MER and me with MCR, you are likely to beat me in the end
(well, we'd both lose on JOB). But I could beat you. It is far
from impossible. Maybe that's his point.
But that's the wrong way to look at it. It's not what I do vs. you,
it's what YOU do vs. you. There is only one trial here. Most of
your hands will be the same with either method. Anyway, 91M hands is
so far out that you almost have to go with the theoretical long
term. Since none of us will do this, the debate continues.
By the way, playing 9/6 $1 JOB under this scenario with no c/b, it
is also very likely you will lose around $2M, so hopefully your
estate can handle the blow 
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> > In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
> > come out better using MER.
>
> I don't believe so.
>See, this is what I mean. Just as soon as I think I grasp it, a
contradictory post is made.Either you make more money or you don't and which method makes
more
money total. I am guessing that if MER makes more per hand, then
the total is also going to be higher (based on playing 5K hands
per
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@> wrote:
day). So MER is more likely to build your nest egg.Are we stumbling on the words "MUCH MORE LIKELY" If so, then I got
my answer. MER makes more money.Is that true or not?
BTW, I am thanking all who are trying to help.
DWK
Well, ROR wasn't part of the question
If you're looking for LESS volatility over a more reasonable time,
then probably the FPDW version of MCR is less volatile than MER.
The JOB version is more volatile.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@>
wrote:
> MER makes more money.
>
> Is that true or not?Depends. You are forgeting the effect of risk of ruin.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm
Q1: What is wrong with maximizing your expected winnings?
A1: Although at first glance it seems obvious that it is best to
maximize the expected (i.e., predicted average) amount of your
winnings, this is in fact not true for most people. If this were
really your goal then whenever you had the slightest advantage you
would mortgage your house, car, and boat and bet your entire
fortune.
Although this gives you the greatest net win, on average, this is
entirely too risky for most people.
dddddmike wrote:
Even though your talking about 91M+ hands over 50 years, we can still
only talk in terms of "liklihoods." This is, after all, still a game
of random chance. In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
come out better using MER.It is very likely you would hit fewer royals using MCR for FPDW and
you would hit more royals on JOB, per my understanding. That is
because the royal is valued a little higher than normal on JOB and a
little lower than normal on FPDW using this strategy.It's not the easiest concept I've ever tried to grasp ...
You've got your head firmly around this.
As an aside, as I noted earlier, if you're playing JB because cash
benefits push the game positive, then in pursuing a MCR strategy
you'll actually reduce the royal value to cut the strategy back to one
that would "reflect" a breakeven oppportunity. In that case, you'll
again expect to score fewer royals.
- Harry
dddddmike wrote:
> In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
> come out better using MER.
nightoftheiguana2000 replied:
I don't believe so.
Ultimately, I almost always defer to your take iggy -- and will likely
in this case.
But are you sure that over the "91+M" hand scenario posed this isn't
true? (As you look at shorter quantities, which most of us look to
for our play, I expect things shift -- but I'm not confident of that.)
- Harry
If your bankroll is half the kelly number, minROR strategy produces
the best bankroll growth rate,
True, however that best growth rate is "zero growth" at that particular
bankroll. For smaller bankrolls, the expectation is for the bankroll
to shrink despite having a favorable game.
On Monday 07 August 2006 11:58 pm, nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
if your bankroll is the kelly number,
then the strategy between minROR and maxER produces the best bankroll
growth rate, as your bankroll exceeds the kelly number, the best
strategy for bankroll growth approaches maxER. Kelly number can be
approximated by variance/(er+cashback-1) or exactly calculated. Jazbo
provides a calculator:http://www.jazbo.com/poker/kellyp.html
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
You can't play "91+M" hands if you bust out of your bankroll. Are you
assuming an infinite bankroll? That would seem to be a bit
unrealistic. As Steve pointed out, if your bankroll is less than half
Kelly, even if you use minrisk strategy, your longterm expectation is
to bust out, even though the game has a positive expectation. In
gambler's parlance, you are underbankrolled. For FPDW and no cashback,
Kelly is about 4 royals. Other games have different Kelly numbers,
roughly variance/(er+cashback-1).
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
dddddmike wrote:
> > In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
> > come out better using MER.nightoftheiguana2000 replied:
> I don't believe so.Ultimately, I almost always defer to your take iggy -- and will likely
in this case.But are you sure that over the "91+M" hand scenario posed this isn't
true? (As you look at shorter quantities, which most of us look to
for our play, I expect things shift -- but I'm not confident of that.)- Harry
slight clarification: for a bankroll of less than half Kelly your
expectation is bankroll reduction, not necessarily complete ruin
ror=50% for FPDW at 1061 bets (1.3 royals, about Kelly/3)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
You can't play "91+M" hands if you bust out of your bankroll. Are you
assuming an infinite bankroll? That would seem to be a bit
unrealistic. As Steve pointed out, if your bankroll is less than half
Kelly, even if you use minrisk strategy, your longterm expectation is
to bust out, even though the game has a positive expectation. In
gambler's parlance, you are underbankrolled. For FPDW and no cashback,
Kelly is about 4 royals. Other games have different Kelly numbers,
roughly variance/(er+cashback-1).--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@> wrote:
>
> dddddmike wrote:
> > > In either case, it is MUCH MORE LIKELY you will
> > > come out better using MER.
>
> nightoftheiguana2000 replied:
> > I don't believe so.
>
> Ultimately, I almost always defer to your take iggy -- and will likely
> in this case.
>
> But are you sure that over the "91+M" hand scenario posed this isn't
> true? (As you look at shorter quantities, which most of us look to
> for our play, I expect things shift -- but I'm not confident of that.)
>
> - Harry
>
nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
You can't play "91+M" hands if you bust out of your bankroll. Are you
assuming an infinite bankroll? That would seem to be a bit
unrealistic.
Well, let me go back to the originating discussion. The question of
playing 5000 hands/day of FPDW w/no cb until death was raised by DW1k,
to which 5dMike responded that MER play would be much more likely to
come out ahead over MCR.
Ok, I'm presuming that this reply assumes a conditional that your
bankroll indeed survives the full run -- so in essence, yes, I'm
assuming an infinite bankroll -- or at least one that might lend
itself to a 99.9% probability of survival.
But that doesn't seem unrealistic at all (the funding part, not the 5K
hands, day in and day out ;). I can well see someone starting out
with an upfront $10K loss allowance and being willing to supplement
that with as much as $3K-$5K per year, unceasingly, as an
entertainment budget against 1500+ hrs. of play a year. I expect that
if these numbers need be adjusted to a moderate degree to get to a
99.9% survival probability that I'd be quite comfortable with that as
well.
However, there's little question that if you introduce the risk a
certain proportion of players with a given bankroll constraint will
"crap out" of play sometime earlier than the 50 years that underlie
the 91MM hand value, the expected average finish between MER and MCR
shifts -- which comes out ahead now depends on how much more
restricted the bankroll assumptions are.
- Harry
OK, we're talking about 3/100 of a percent with JOB, and that's
not
a huge #, but we're also talking about 91M hands.
Where did those numbers come from?
There are no guarantees. If we both set about playing 91M hands,
you using MER and me with MCR, you are likely to beat me in the
end
(well, we'd both lose on JOB). But I could beat you. It is far
from impossible. Maybe that's his point.
Whose point? I just asked which would make the most money or lose
the least money if played for a very long time. I thought the
question was clear.
By the way, playing 9/6 $1 JOB under this scenario with no c/b, it
is also very likely you will lose around $2M, so hopefully your
estate can handle the blow
That is obvious, but the correct answers seems to depend on who you
ask. In math it seems there should only be one correct answer.
FWIW, 5000 hands per day would take nearly 50 years to accumulate
91 million hands. So a loss of 2M total very possibly could be
tolerated by some, probably not me.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@...> wrote:
Where did those numbers come from?
3/100 of a percent is about the ER difference between MER and
MCR. 91M hands is playing 5000 hands per day for 50 years. I don't
know how old you are and you aksed about 5000 hands per day forever.
Whose point? I just asked which would make the most money or lose
the least money if played for a very long time. I thought the
question was clear.
This is statistics, not math. Given that you have the bankroll
to PLAY 91M hands, you are very likely to come out better with MER.
There are no absolutes. To take this point to the extreme, there is
no particular reason you couldn't play 91M hands and lose them all.
It's just like a google google googles to one shot, or something like
that.
In math it seems there should only be one correct answer.
See last answer. Look, the results for two people playing the
same game at the same skill level can vary widely. Let's take a more
realistic 2.6M hands, which is is 5000 hands per week for 10 years.
You play and I play. It is virtually certain that we will NOT come
out with the exact same results.
> Where did those numbers come from?
3/100 of a percent is about the ER difference between MER and
MCR. 91M hands is playing 5000 hands per day for 50 years. I
don't
know how old you are and you aksed about 5000 hands per day
forever.
> Whose point? I just asked which would make the most money or
lose
> the least money if played for a very long time. I thought the
> question was clear.This is statistics, not math. Given that you have the
bankroll
to PLAY 91M hands, you are very likely to come out better with
MER.
There are no absolutes. To take this point to the extreme, there
is
no particular reason you couldn't play 91M hands and lose them
all.
It's just like a google google googles to one shot, or something
like
that.
>In math it seems there should only be one correct answer.
See last answer. Look, the results for two people playing the
same game at the same skill level can vary widely. Let's take a
more
realistic 2.6M hands, which is is 5000 hands per week for 10
years.
You play and I play. It is virtually certain that we will NOT
come
out with the exact same results.
Bottom line, I know there are no sure thing in probability. I did
not ask about variance/std dev/volatility. I inquired as to the
expected outcome of playing for a very long time using either MER or
MCR.
Because lately, no one is disputing that the correct answer is MER,
then I thank you, because that is the question I asked.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dddddmike" <ddddmike@...> wrote:
Your numbers look about correct, for $1.25/hand. I suspect the average
quarter player would be surprised at their size however.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
But that doesn't seem unrealistic at all (the funding part, not the 5K
hands, day in and day out ;). I can well see someone starting out
with an upfront $10K loss allowance and being willing to supplement
that with as much as $3K-$5K per year, unceasingly, as an
entertainment budget against 1500+ hrs. of play a year. I expect that
if these numbers need be adjusted to a moderate degree to get to a
99.9% survival probability that I'd be quite comfortable with that as
well.