Skill and Luck (Part 2)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/3r3q5">
http://tinyurl.com/3r3q5</a>
New Jean Scott Frugal Fridays Column
What has been the longest streak of losing sessions playing the same
$1 denomination game (not neccesarily machine)? What was the game and
how did you break out of the funk? It wouldn't surprise me if the game
was JW2, Pick Em, or All American. While these are fun to play the
lengthy dryspells really test one's determination and bankroll. I'm
beginning to wonder if anyone who plays these regularly ever wins.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
Skill and Luck (Part 2)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/3r3q5">
http://tinyurl.com/3r3q5</a>
<<It wouldn't surprise me if the game
was JW2, Pick Em, or All American.>>
We don't play any of these - except Pick'Em just once in a blue moon.
We jump around so much in the choice of games and then in various denominations that it's too hard to know what our longest losing streak has been on any one game/level. I know it isn't as much fun to be in a losing streak than in a winning one - but I have such a strong faith in the long term, bolstered by 14 winning years, that I just grin and bear the losing times and they DO end eventually IF you have a large enough bankroll that you don't go broke first. I'm so paranoid about going broke before I get to the winning long term that I like about TWICE the bankroll that Kelly and all the math heads suggest. The older I get the more paranoid I become. I don't like getting even near the bottom of the barrel. I used to say to have the equivalent of 3 royals, then I went to saying 5 royals. Now I want about a 10-royal bankroll and I still scramble like mad to find extra benefits, promotions, etc., "just in case."
···
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<It wouldn't surprise me if the game
was JW2, Pick Em, or All American.>>We don't play any of these - except Pick'Em just once in a blue moon.
We jump around so much in the choice of games and then in various
denominations that it's too hard to know what our longest losing
streak has been on any one game/level. I know it isn't as much fun to
be in a losing streak than in a winning one - but I have such a strong
faith in the long term, bolstered by 14 winning years, that I just
grin and bear the losing times and they DO end eventually IF you have
a large enough bankroll that you don't go broke first. I'm so
paranoid about going broke before I get to the winning long term that
I like about TWICE the bankroll that Kelly and all the math heads
suggest. The older I get the more paranoid I become. I don't like
getting even near the bottom of the barrel. I used to say to have the
equivalent of 3 royals, then I went to saying 5 royals. Now I want
about a 10-royal bankroll and I still scramble like mad to find extra
benefits, promotions, etc., "just in case."
Who is Kelly? I've been using the Dancer recommended 3 Royals rule,
but recent dryspells in JW2 and OEJ have me thinking that it isn't
just slightly off for these games, but off by a significant factor. A
formal mathematical treatise would make me feel a lot better if I
could just get my hands on one. Why do I play these games? They're the
best local (midwest) offering, even better than NSUD. I've put a lot
of work into these games and play them quite well (although less than
the 100% proficiency that Bob requires for any hope of success :-)),
but that doesn't seem to be a preventative for slumps. I've
temporarily demoted myself to $.25 denomination at which I've been
extremely successful in the past. Maybe it's a case of "dance with the
one that brung ya". 
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Given the high volatility of these games I would suggest a 10 RF
bankroll. I've had losing streaks of 6-7 RFs a couple of times. I've
also had some nice winning streaks when I survived.
Dick
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:
> <<It wouldn't surprise me if the game
> was JW2, Pick Em, or All American.>>
>
> We don't play any of these - except Pick'Em just once in a blue
moon.
>
> We jump around so much in the choice of games and then in various
denominations that it's too hard to know what our longest losing
streak has been on any one game/level. I know it isn't as much fun
to
be in a losing streak than in a winning one - but I have such a
strong
faith in the long term, bolstered by 14 winning years, that I just
grin and bear the losing times and they DO end eventually IF you
have
a large enough bankroll that you don't go broke first. I'm so
paranoid about going broke before I get to the winning long term
that
I like about TWICE the bankroll that Kelly and all the math heads
suggest. The older I get the more paranoid I become. I don't like
getting even near the bottom of the barrel. I used to say to have
the
equivalent of 3 royals, then I went to saying 5 royals. Now I want
about a 10-royal bankroll and I still scramble like mad to find
extra
benefits, promotions, etc., "just in case."
Who is Kelly? I've been using the Dancer recommended 3 Royals rule,
but recent dryspells in JW2 and OEJ have me thinking that it isn't
just slightly off for these games, but off by a significant factor.
A
formal mathematical treatise would make me feel a lot better if I
could just get my hands on one. Why do I play these games? They're
the
best local (midwest) offering, even better than NSUD. I've put a lot
of work into these games and play them quite well (although less
than
the 100% proficiency that Bob requires for any hope of success :-)),
but that doesn't seem to be a preventative for slumps. I've
temporarily demoted myself to $.25 denomination at which I've been
extremely successful in the past. Maybe it's a case of "dance with
the
3 royals works for full pay deuces wild +0.33% cashback but not
necessarily for other games, depends on the variance and er:
Bankroll (11%ror) = VARIANCE / (ER-1) bets
assumes you are playing perfect strategy or close to it (modified
strategies have different variance and er)
doesn't work at all for negative games (the more you play the more
you lose)
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
Who is Kelly? I've been using the Dancer recommended 3 Royals rule,
but recent dryspells in JW2 and OEJ have me thinking that it isn't
just slightly off for these games, but off by a significant factor.
<<Who is Kelly? I've been using the Dancer recommended 3 Royals rule,
but recent dryspells in JW2 and OEJ have me thinking that it isn't
just slightly off for these games, but off by a significant factor.>>
This is an old e-mail I hadn't gotten around to answering. Kelly is some math guy who came up with a math formula to figure bankroll needs. Not sure how long ago that was or the exact name of the formula - Kelly Criterion? Or, something like that?
When I wrote Frugal 1, I talked about the 3 royal-bankroll, but mentioned that I like a 5-royal better because I don't like to be real near the bottom of the barrel. AND I was talking about FPDW and HEAVY use of promotions, slot club benefits - back then we really scrambled and also did a lot of couponing.
In Frugal 2 I talked about the subject again and emphasized the scrambling again.
Today, Brad and I demand a much higher bankroll because we are playing with a much lower play EV than we were even a couple of years ago. Playing with only a .5% advantage, I would not feel comfortable with much less than an 8-times-royal bankroll. And if you are counting in tournament equity which is VERY long term we can't feel secure with much less than TEN-TIMES-ROYAL bankroll. And this still is based on a LOT of scrambling to squeeze every penny of EV out of every coupon, bounce-back, cashback, promotion we can find.
We never count comps although one could. The food comps we use reduces our grocery bill; the show, cruise, movie, party, etc. comps reduces our spending on other entertainment options; the "stuff" the casino gives us reduces our gift spending on children, grandchildren, and friends. If you do count comps, I suggest you low-ball the actual worth figure. If you get a $1200 shopping spree in overpriced stores where you buy stuff you really don't need or even want and have to give away most of it - I count that worth about one-third for us - about $400.
For you all who play just barely over 100%, I don't think there is enough money in the world for you to be SECURE that you will reach long-term winning. I see a big danger for many of you here. You think if you play 10/7 DB, even pretty accurately, you are an advantage player and are destined to win. I'm not being harsh here - I just hate for people to be crushed when they lose most of the time.
Unless you have a good basic-play advantage (game return plus extras) EVERY TIME you play in a casino, play VERY accurately (and most people don't), and chase promotions and extra benefits tirelessly, you don't have a hope of being a long-term winner. And if you play at 100%+ just "most of the time," just "kind of sort of" study the strategies, jump from game to game in one session, think it is too much bother to run around using coupons or do promotions, then I can predict you WILL be a long-term loser.
You are really just a recreational casino player - and that is all right, if you are happy to lose only what you can afford and count it as entertainment. And if you do even some of the things that a good advantage player does, you will lose less and that is always good.
Being a long-term winning player is VERY hard - always has been and it is getting harder every day. Yes, it is still possible - Brad and I are still doing it and I know a lot of other people who are doing it - but it takes a lot more than wishful thinking.
···
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jean Scott wrote:
You think if you play 10/7 DB, even pretty accurately, you are an
advantage player and are destined to win. I'm not being harsh here -
I just hate for people to be crushed when they lose most of the time.
I wasn't crushed by my painful prolonged shot at $1 10/7 DB. But I
was walking pretty low to the ground by the time I threw in the towel 
Of course, a 4 to 5 cycle RF drought didn't help matters at all.
- H.
Since the quoted text preceding this rather lengthy response is mine,
I'm not quite sure who the intended target audience is for all that
follows. All I was curious about was the technical substance of
"Kelly". My guess was that it would be old hat for the veterans of
this forum and some useful pointers might result. I did not want to
presume that any Internet search I conducted would neccessarily
uncover the most relevant information on this subject. I will do some
digging anyways though. Thanks for responding.
<<Who is Kelly? I've been using the Dancer recommended 3 Royals rule,
but recent dryspells in JW2 and OEJ have me thinking that it isn't
just slightly off for these games, but off by a significant factor.>>This is an old e-mail I hadn't gotten around to answering. Kelly is
some math guy who came up with a math formula to figure bankroll
needs. Not sure how long ago that was or the exact name of the
formula - Kelly Criterion? Or, something like that?
When I wrote Frugal 1, I talked about the 3 royal-bankroll, but
mentioned that I like a 5-royal better because I don't like to be real
near the bottom of the barrel. AND I was talking about FPDW and HEAVY
use of promotions, slot club benefits - back then we really scrambled
and also did a lot of couponing.
In Frugal 2 I talked about the subject again and emphasized the
scrambling again.
Today, Brad and I demand a much higher bankroll because we are
playing with a much lower play EV than we were even a couple of years
ago. Playing with only a .5% advantage, I would not feel comfortable
with much less than an 8-times-royal bankroll. And if you are
counting in tournament equity which is VERY long term we can't feel
secure with much less than TEN-TIMES-ROYAL bankroll. And this still
is based on a LOT of scrambling to squeeze every penny of EV out of
every coupon, bounce-back, cashback, promotion we can find.
We never count comps although one could. The food comps we use
reduces our grocery bill; the show, cruise, movie, party, etc. comps
reduces our spending on other entertainment options; the "stuff" the
casino gives us reduces our gift spending on children, grandchildren,
and friends. If you do count comps, I suggest you low-ball the actual
worth figure. If you get a $1200 shopping spree in overpriced stores
where you buy stuff you really don't need or even want and have to
give away most of it - I count that worth about one-third for us -
about $400.
For you all who play just barely over 100%, I don't think there is
enough money in the world for you to be SECURE that you will reach
long-term winning. I see a big danger for many of you here. You
think if you play 10/7 DB, even pretty accurately, you are an
advantage player and are destined to win. I'm not being harsh here -
I just hate for people to be crushed when they lose most of the time.
Unless you have a good basic-play advantage (game return plus
extras) EVERY TIME you play in a casino, play VERY accurately (and
most people don't), and chase promotions and extra benefits
tirelessly, you don't have a hope of being a long-term winner. And if
you play at 100%+ just "most of the time," just "kind of sort of"
study the strategies, jump from game to game in one session, think it
is too much bother to run around using coupons or do promotions, then
I can predict you WILL be a long-term loser.
You are really just a recreational casino player - and that is all
right, if you are happy to lose only what you can afford and count it
as entertainment. And if you do even some of the things that a good
advantage player does, you will lose less and that is always good.
Being a long-term winning player is VERY hard - always has been and
it is getting harder every day. Yes, it is still possible - Brad and
I are still doing it and I know a lot of other people who are doing it
- but it takes a lot more than wishful thinking.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
for VP software and strategy cards and for the
Frugal series of books.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm not crushed by the dryspells I reported neither. Aggravated yes,
alarmed yes, but crushed no. Although I'm competent in these games I
don't have the experience in them to keep me calm in the face of
events which veterans would recognize as just a bump in the road. I'm
getting there fast though.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...> wrote:
Jean Scott wrote:
> You think if you play 10/7 DB, even pretty accurately, you are an
> advantage player and are destined to win. I'm not being harsh here -
> I just hate for people to be crushed when they lose most of the time.I wasn't crushed by my painful prolonged shot at $1 10/7 DB. But I
was walking pretty low to the ground by the time I threw in the towelOf course, a 4 to 5 cycle RF drought didn't help matters at all.
- H.
vp_nbi wrote:
Although I'm competent in these games I don't have the experience in
them to keep me calm in the face of events which veterans would
recognize as just a bump in the road. I'm getting there fast though.
"Calm"? Well ... hardly
But I wasn't crying too hard either. A concurrent string of lucky
visits to another property in the vicinity had me soon referring to
myself as the "Robin Hood of AC". This was particularly apt given the
relative fortunes of the two properties involved. (Alternatively I
considered myself an unofficial Brinks courier.) 
- H.
of "Kelly". My guess was that it would be old hat for the veterans of
this forum and some useful pointers might result. I did not want to
presume that any Internet search I conducted would neccessarily
uncover the most relevant information on this subject. I will do some
digging anyways though. Thanks for responding.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
...All I was curious about was the technical substance
*********************************
The purpose of the Kelly Criterion is to "maximize the expected value
of the logarithm of wealth". In simple terms, Kelly says to bet a
percentage of your bankroll equal to your percent advantage, assuming
a simple even money game. This ideal bet can be adjusted for games
that don't have even money payoffs. Games with higher variance, such
as VP, naturally require a lower bet. For games with zero
expectation or negative expectation, Kelly implies a $0 bet. Also,
in the strictest sense, Kelly betting implies that we adjust our bet
sizes with each change in our bankroll (i.e. with every win or loss),
which is pretty impractical to do in video poker. Go to
www.bjmath.com and click on the button for "Feature Articles". There
are several papers that discuss application of the Kelly Criterion to
favorable gambling games. Be warned that these articles are heavy on
the math, most of which is way over my head.
EE
kelly bet is advantage/variance times bankroll
from this you can derive a kelly bankroll:
kelly bankroll=bet x variance/(er-1)
for quarter 5 coin fpdw:
=$1.25 x 25.83461818 /(1.007619624-1)=$4,238.17
(you can use the sorokin number for fpdw and find that the risk of
ruin for this bankroll is: 0.999346831403995^(4,238.17/1.25)=10.9%)
technically, if you are able to double this bankroll, you should
double your bet, conversely if you halve this bankroll, you should
halve your bet, but this can't always be done in video poker where
you have less control over bet size than table games
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm
>>>>>> ...All I was curious about was the technical substance
of "Kelly". My guess was that it would be old hat for the veterans
of
this forum and some useful pointers might result. I did not want to
presume that any Internet search I conducted would neccessarily
uncover the most relevant information on this subject. I will do
some
digging anyways though. Thanks for
responding.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
*********************************
The purpose of the Kelly Criterion is to "maximize the expected
value
of the logarithm of wealth". In simple terms, Kelly says to bet a
percentage of your bankroll equal to your percent advantage,
assuming
a simple even money game. This ideal bet can be adjusted for games
that don't have even money payoffs. Games with higher variance,
such
as VP, naturally require a lower bet. For games with zero
expectation or negative expectation, Kelly implies a $0 bet. Also,
in the strictest sense, Kelly betting implies that we adjust our
bet
sizes with each change in our bankroll (i.e. with every win or
loss),
which is pretty impractical to do in video poker. Go to
www.bjmath.com and click on the button for "Feature Articles".
There
are several papers that discuss application of the Kelly Criterion
to
favorable gambling games. Be warned that these articles are heavy
on
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "eecounter" <eecounter@h...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
the math, most of which is way over my head.EE
Thanks guys, this is exactly what I was looking for.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
···
kelly bet is advantage/variance times bankroll
from this you can derive a kelly bankroll:
kelly bankroll=bet x variance/(er-1)
for quarter 5 coin fpdw:
=$1.25 x 25.83461818 /(1.007619624-1)=$4,238.17
(you can use the sorokin number for fpdw and find that the risk of
ruin for this bankroll is: 0.999346831403995^(4,238.17/1.25)=10.9%)
technically, if you are able to double this bankroll, you should
double your bet, conversely if you halve this bankroll, you should
halve your bet, but this can't always be done in video poker where
you have less control over bet size than table games
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "eecounter" <eecounter@h...> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_nbi" <nbi@w...> wrote:
> >>>>>> ...All I was curious about was the technical substance
> of "Kelly". My guess was that it would be old hat for the veterans
of
> this forum and some useful pointers might result. I did not want to
> presume that any Internet search I conducted would neccessarily
> uncover the most relevant information on this subject. I will do
some
> digging anyways though. Thanks for
responding.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> *********************************
>
> The purpose of the Kelly Criterion is to "maximize the expected
value
> of the logarithm of wealth". In simple terms, Kelly says to bet a
> percentage of your bankroll equal to your percent advantage,
assuming
> a simple even money game. This ideal bet can be adjusted for games
> that don't have even money payoffs. Games with higher variance,
such
> as VP, naturally require a lower bet. For games with zero
> expectation or negative expectation, Kelly implies a $0 bet. Also,
> in the strictest sense, Kelly betting implies that we adjust our
bet
> sizes with each change in our bankroll (i.e. with every win or
loss),
> which is pretty impractical to do in video poker. Go to
> www.bjmath.com and click on the button for "Feature Articles".
There
> are several papers that discuss application of the Kelly Criterion
to
> favorable gambling games. Be warned that these articles are heavy
on
> the math, most of which is way over my head.
>
> EE
in response to the question:
<<Who is Kelly?
<Kelly is some math guy who came up with a math formula to figure
bankroll needs. >
I think this response is about like answering "Who is Jean Scott?" by
saying she is some school teacher who wrote a book about how to sneak
sandwiches out of the buffet and how to get someone to drive you
around the airport collecting luggage carts for the quarter.<g>
"The Kelly Criterion arose from the work of John Kelly at
AT&T's Bell Labs in 1956. His original formulas dealt with long-
distance telephone transmission signal noise. But the gambling
community quickly understood that the same approach may help them to
calculate the optimal amount to bet on a horse and the best way to
take advantage of overlays and underlays, maximizing the growth of
your bankroll over the long term. Nowadays, Kelly Criterion is a
recognized money management system and whenever the question of
optimal betting size pops up in handicapping or money management
books you always see Kelly formula mentioned."
Spread a little sunshine
Ozymandias
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
in response to the question:
<<Who is Kelly?<Kelly is some math guy who came up with a math formula to figure
bankroll needs. >I think this response is about like answering "Who is Jean Scott?" by
saying she is some school teacher who wrote a book about how to sneak
sandwiches out of the buffet and how to get someone to drive you
around the airport collecting luggage carts for the quarter.<g>
Well put. As someone with a BSEE and MS in Telecom Science I wasn't
quite sure how to interpret Jean's comments and whether or not I
qualify as a "math guy". I suspect I do.
"The Kelly Criterion arose from the work of John Kelly at
AT&T's Bell Labs in 1956. His original formulas dealt with long-
distance telephone transmission signal noise. But the gambling
community quickly understood that the same approach may help them to
calculate the optimal amount to bet on a horse and the best way to
take advantage of overlays and underlays, maximizing the growth of
your bankroll over the long term. Nowadays, Kelly Criterion is a
recognized money management system and whenever the question of
optimal betting size pops up in handicapping or money management
books you always see Kelly formula mentioned."
Kelly doesn't quite ring a bell the way Nyquist does. I suppose given
my background I should be familiar with his work, but I'm not. Must
have been dozing in class that day.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ozymandias77096" <ugwf@h...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...> wrote:
Spread a little sunshine
Ozymandias