There was a good sounding rebate in Australia a dozen years ago. Folks I know that went didn't have good results.
I do not believe you should change your indices based on the rebates that I've studied.
There was a good sounding rebate in Australia a dozen years ago. Folks I know that went didn't have good results.
I do not believe you should change your indices based on the rebates that I've studied.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
This is not an area that I've studied carefully. However, while I think that loss rebates can surely figure into your bankroll requirements, Kelly betting, and ROR calculations, I don't see offhand why they would cause you to play your hands differently from what is traditionally "correct."
I would be happy to learn more about that and would not be shocked to find out that I could be wrong, but that is my opinion at the moment.
Don
I think the only indices that would make sense to alter are risk averse indices. Higher variance and risk can be your friend depending on the rebate structure, but I never studied it to say anything more than a course of action to research. Like a positive but slightly less EV that has twice the magnitude for individual results might be favorable given the rebate. If you are trying to hit a target win or lose the amount to get the rebate that variance may increase how often you make that target amount with little reduction in EV. I am actually getting a loss rebate at some casinos. I would be interested in any research you do.
I ran a large number of sims on this for Arnold many years back. Basically, you can dramatically raise bets when substantially behind. But, I don't remember the nuances. Frankly, I don't think there is much you can do to substantially improve results over that provided by the rebate and normal play with a huge spread.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Bookmarks