... 16 years ago, I played at white chip tables. This was in a little shack in the MI upper peninsula. There was no compact with the state or anything. They weren't sure it was legal, but they were going to try it.
If I hadn't had a little luck, the first few months, I surely wouldn't be here posting today.
I remember when they abandoned the $1 tables in favor of $2. TWO DOLLARS! I thought the world had come to an end.
ETF
If I am not mistaken, you haven't quite made the leap from those $2 tables up to the $5 tables yet, right? ;>)
In simple terms... continuous abuse of Full Kelly,not good idea,a risky move.
Jusy curious does full kelly imply risk neutral.
I mean, if someone chooses to play full kelly (or rather 0.76 kelly in BJ), then that means this particular individual is risk neutral?
> Jusy curious does full kelly imply risk
> neutral.
> I mean, if someone chooses to play full
> kelly (or rather 0.76 kelly in BJ), then
> that means this particular individual is
> risk neutral?
I think full Kelly carries a risk of ruin of approximztely 13%.
Could you explain your definition of full kelly in BJ being ".76" ?
> Jusy curious does full kelly imply risk
> neutral.
> I mean, if someone chooses to play full
> kelly (or rather 0.76 kelly in BJ), then
> that means this particular individual is
> risk neutral?
If you are actually playing true full Kelly, then your risk of ruin is zero, at least in theory, because you are constantly resizing your bets based on your existing bankroll.
However, this is not a practical way to play. Also, if you were losing and downsizing your bets, eventually you would run into table limits and while not technically bankrupt, you would be, for all practical purposes, done.
If you take your bankroll and calculate an optimal full Kelly bet ramp, and then play without any bet resizing, your risk of ruin is approximately 13.5%.
Most people consider this unacceptably high, and elect to play some fraction of Kelly.
Can't even get a SEAT for less for less than $10 any more, without driving two hours plus.
> If I am not mistaken, you haven't quite made
> the leap from those $2 tables up to the $5
> tables yet, right? ;>)
... why you said: "If one choses to play full kelly as expressed in BJA (13.5% ror). These mere winnings and TOTAL bankroll will ultimately surmise to dust." That makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying 13.5% ROR = 100% ROR.
Even if you define "sumise to dust" as losing half your bankroll, the chance of this happening is still well under 50%. IMHO, it's too strong to say this will ultimately happen.
> In simple terms... continuous abuse of Full
> Kelly,not good idea,a risky move.
I think we agree on that much.
ETF
> Jusy curious does full kelly imply risk
> neutral.
> I mean, if someone chooses to play full
> kelly (or rather 0.76 kelly in BJ), then
> that means this particular individual is
> risk neutral?
As I've heard the term used, "risk neutral" means a person who doesn't care about risk at all. In utility theory (which I'm not a great believer in), it can be proved that a person who doesn't care about risk must maximize his EV at all times. Such a person would bet every penny at his disposal every time he had the slightest advantage. He would be practically certain to go broke very quickly.
A Kelly bettor, on the other hand, is risk averse, as most all rational people are.
ETF
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks