1. ## blackjack crusader: Continuous Resizing Betting ?

David D'Aquin has a formula at bjmath.com "Long Run Formula for Kelly Betting" where he talks about the number of hands needed for continuous resizing to surpass fixed betting. Is there a formula for determing the number of hands needed for continous resizing to surpass with just over 50% confidence?

Since we probably don't resize constantly, can we take into consideration incremental resizing?

Thank you any responders for your time.

2. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Continuous Resizing Betting?

> David D'Aquin has a formula at bjmath.com "Long
> Run Formula for Kelly Betting" where he talks
> about the number of hands needed for continuous
> resizing to surpass fixed betting. Is there a formula
> for determining the number of hands needed for continuous
> resizing to surpass with just over 50% confidence?

I don't remember reading David's post, so I'm not familiar with the formula. It's possible that others, such as Thorp or Friedman, have made the comparative study, but, if so, I haven't seen it.

> Since we probably don't resize constantly, can we take
> into consideration incremental resizing?

Even messier still, I'm sure. This sounds like the type of problem -- especially the latter -- that is more readily solved by simulation than by direct formula.

Don

3. ## blackjack crusader: Re: Continuous Resizing Betting?

> I don't remember reading David's post, so I'm not
> familiar with the formula. It's possible that others,
> such as Thorp or Friedman, have made the comparative
> study, but, if so, I haven't seen it.

> Even messier still, I'm sure. This sounds like the
> type of problem -- especially the latter -- that is
> more readily solved by simulation than by direct
> formula.

> Don

David's Formula
[(7.2 * SD per hand)/exp win per hand]^2

This is the number to guarantee resizing surpasses fixed betting. I would imagine the 50% number would be far less? Would that number be toward the 100% number or far less?

4. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Continuous Resizing Betting?

> David's Formula
> [(7.2 * SD per hand)/exp win per hand]^2

> This is the number to guarantee resizing surpasses
> fixed betting. I would imagine the 50% number would be
> far less? Would that number be toward the 100% number
> or far less?

I would guess far less, but I really don't know. I've never seen this issue discussed before, as most players don't resize very frequently, and even if they did, making the mathematically correct bet is almost always impractical or impossible, so the formula might be affected by these necessary approximations.

I can appreciate your interest from a theoretical point of view, but I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over this. Resize to the upside when you feel you've won enough to accept the inevitable swings that will come with the bigger bets, and resize to the downside when you've lost about 50% of your bank.

Don

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•