only when it is a bj. hey whatever floats your boat
OP might want to know the RoR of betting 0.75timesBRtimesEV. Full kelly is 13% RoR. Half kelly (0.5*BR*EV) is just under 2% RoR. I believe 3/4 kelly is around 10%, which is a considerably high riskOriginally Posted by Meistro123
Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk
Half kelly (0.5*BR*EV) is just under 2% RoR.
I describe half kelly as 0.35 * BR * EV as for full kelly you want to use 0.7 * BR * EV to adjust for possibilities of doubles and splits. So it would make more sense for half kelly to be 50% of kelly as opposed to 70%.
And because Kelly at 1% assumes you have an edge on all bets, and negative counts should be bet at 0. The adjustment is made to reduce your risk due to these factors. The other factor in play for this OP is about the 5,000 bankroll. Does he have to stop playing if he loses it or can he add more money on a periodic basis from a job or other outside source. If so, he can bet more aggressively.
Kelly from the internet so it must be true......LOL
The Kelly Criterion is well-known among gamblers as a way to decide how much to bet when the odds are in your favor. Most only know a simplified version.
Last edited by Stealth; 11-25-2017 at 10:28 AM.
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
That is a red herring. The fact that you have to make minimum bets with a disadvantage does not play a factor in deciding your bet sizes when you do have an advantage. Both a wonger who plays no hands at a disadvantage and the player who plays all should never bet more than full kelly (bankroll * advantage * .7). The only impact of making some negative ev minimum bets is that your hourly is going to be that much smaller, but it plays no role in shaping the size of your larger bets, which are determined by your bankroll and your advantage and then softened by your desire to reduce variance (that is to say your willingness to sacrifice hourly in order to reduce ROR and enjoy milder swings).And because Kelly at 1% assumes you have an edge on all bets, and negative counts should be bet at 0.
I stridently disagree. The House Edge in the game you are referencing is 0.40%
I assume that as a beginner you are using Hi-Lo. At T.C. +2 your advantage is razor
thin at approx. 0.10%
You do NOT raise your bet at all at +2. If you bet your max your Risk of
Ruin will be in the suicidal 40% - 45% range I believe. Note that Hi-Lo
is a very inefficient count for the good deeply dealt DD game that you describe.
If you bet from $15 to $100 I would call it a 7-1 spread.
If one is betting two hands the casino views the total.
More importantly, going from one to two hands is begging
to be backed-off. It is child's play for anyone, surveillance
included, to just check the count whenever you move to 2
hands. The best way to do this is to play 2 hands to start
and stay at 2 hands as long as the T.C. has not dropped
below -1 At that point, you move to one hand and stay
there until the shuffle.
I disagree. It is the freq with which you make minimum bets at a disadvantage that is the killer. Those negative bets occur at much high frequency than the bets you make at a positive count. They have a huge impact on your EV and RoR. Unless you are only playing positive counts, setting your advantage bets without regard to the negative is suicide.
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
Please stop offering misguided advice. Speaking with conviction doesn't make whatever garbage you're saying accurate and all you're doing is leading these players to the slaughterhouse. True count of +2 with the rules he's referencing on a double deck is .10%? REALLY? How about you try around the 1% marker regardless of how good the pen is. Good pen will result in over a 1% edge at +2.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks