Things do seem to be getting a little personal here, which is
unfortunate. My view on this is similar to George Carlin's view on
religion...your goal is like a pair of shoes. If you try it on and at
works for you, great. But don't go around nailing your shoes onto
other peoples feet.
I appreciate all the effort that Steve is putting into this, and I can
imagine it is not easy to be constantly swimming upstream. I am still
a strong MEV supporter, but I can see times when another strategy may
be appropriate.
I don't feel that Steve is trying to force his views on anyone. He is
simply making information available to anyone who is interested.
Unfortunately, when you have been immersed in MEV for a long time,
anything else looks like a waste of energy. I personally can't think
of a reason why I might want to try MCR, and view this as simply a
demonstration that there may be goals out there other than MEV. And
this gets me to thinking that, maybe, I might be able to come up with
a different goal that may or may not be consistent with MEV. For me,
I know I have a limited bankroll, and limited time to play. And my
goal right now is to build up my play enough to get reasonable
mailings. This may or may not be compatible with MEV. Once I am
properly established, I will definitely focus on MEV, but if another
approach will help me become established, I am willing to look at that
over the short term. Two possible alternatives might be a max-coin-in
strategy which gives the most play for a given bankroll and length of
play (possibly the same thing as min risk) and a coin-in goal
strategy, which maximizes the probability of reaching a specific
coin-in goal given a particular bankroll and length of play.
So, Steve, keep up the good work, and thank you. Although I have no
use right now for MCR, I can get a lot of use out of the concept of
adjusting strategy for alternate goals. For now it is just out of
curiosity, and I would want to see a substantial change before I
invest the time to memorize a particular strategy, but I have a very
strong curiosity.
- John
> Before I play, I have already determined that the particular
> game/platform/denomination is well within my personal ROR tolerance.
> Therefore, I can always feel completely comfortable playing MER
strategy.
> And that is what I do.
If that is what you're comforable with, then use it. I'm not suggesting
otherwise.
> According to you, NO ONE has the goal of maximizing ER, since no sane
> player would bet his entire net worth on a single bet. Handy,
since you
> like exploring/explaining alternate strategies, that MER is to be
rejected
> out of hand. Sounds pretty self-serving to me. After all, MER
strategy has
> been thoroughly explored, so you must reject it in order to show that
> there is a reason to explore alternate strategies. If everyone simply
> decided that MER strategy is best for them, you would have nothing of
> practical interest to talk about. Theoretical interest, maybe...
Oh my, you're taking this way too personally, and in the process you
are
twisting my words quite a bit here, so I'll try to clarify:
1) My post did not question anyone's sanity, nor did it use any sort of
argument that is designed to evoke an emotional response.
2) I didn't say "entire net worth," but merely "bankroll."
3) I don't reject max-ER strategy, either "out of hand" or any
other way.
If you like it, then use it. If maximizing ER is TRULY your
objective, then
it is the perfect strategy for you to use. I merely offer other
strategies to
those who wish to accomplish something other than maximize dollars
returned per hand played.
4) I don't claim that no one has the goal of maximizing ER. The point
of my question is that maximizing ER and betting less than your entire
bankroll (when faced with a favorable opportunity) are logically
inconsistent actions. The fact that you chose to respond by attacking
me suggests that you couldn't come up with a way to reconcile the two.
I disagree with your claim that most "serious" player want to
maximize EV,
for that very reason -- maximizing ER is incompatible with even a small
degree of risk aversion, and most players (serious or otherwise) have
at least some aversion to risk. Max-ER strategy is not truly
optimal for
such players. Any argument that cannot resolve this dilemma amounts
to rationalization.
5) Declaring alternate strategies "impractical" does not make it
so. If
you don't like them, then don't use them. If you have rational
arguments
for never departing from max-ER strategy, then I'd love to hear
them, but
I'll undoubtedly point out that the math and logic do not support
such claims.
6) If it upsets you this much to have your beliefs challenged, then it
might benefit your blood pressure to simply avoid my posts. It seems
clear that I've touched a raw nerve of some sort. I'm guessing that you
may have been trained in the "ER is everything" religion, and that my
message is blasphemy to your ears. Feel free to call me "self serving"
and put forth other forms of emotion appeal if it makes you feel better,
but such emotional appeals are unpersuasive to those look for sound
reasoning to support their positions.
> Practical players first assess the risk, then decide if it an
acceptable
> one to them. Once this process is complete, MER is the strategy I
use, and
> it is an informed decision. If you can persuade others to adapt other
> strategies, great! They will win less, and the good plays might
last a bit
> longer. So please, carry on!
So what you're saying is that anyone who makes strategy choices that
differ from yours is "impractical" or "uninformed?" Sorry, that dog
won't
hunt. When you have friends over for a BBQ, do you get upset if they
want their steaks medium rare, and insist that well-done is the "only"
practical choice for informed dining?
You speak of making informed decisions, but your message was clearly
based on emotion rather than reason. If the only support you have for
your position is a personal attack on me, then I wonder if your position
is really "informed" or just emotionally soothing.
> Brian
>
> ===================================
>
> In a message dated 8/9/2006 7:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> jacobs@... writes:
> > For every VP hand I am dealt, I want to win the most money, or
lose the
> > least money. I believe that is the definition of max ER play, and I
> > attempt to play each hand in that fashion. And I also believe
that most
> > "serious" players share this goal. For the hands we play, we
wish to win
> > as much as possible, or lose as little as possible. That is MY
goal.
>
> Is it really? Ask yourself this -- if there was a VP machine
that was
> favorable and would allow you to wager any amount you wanted, then
> would you always bet your entire bankroll on each hand? If the
answer
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@...> wrote:
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 9:35 am, bjaygold@... wrote:
> is "no" then your goal isn't really to maximize ER.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>