Myooligan: bet sizing question

[Don Schlesinger]

> Thanks for the response. But I'm still confused on the
> last question.
> I did.

Not closely enough.

> Not quite. The chart says you "keep playing until
> you lose half your bankroll or double your bankroll,
> whichever comes first."

Exactly. So, there will be times when you double your bank, and the experiment stops. If you didn't stop it, there would be times when you would lose from that point on, until you've lost all the way back to half of your original bank. Those times don't get counted in one group, but do in the other. Clear?

> I don't understand your point here. The assumption of
> the chart is that the life of the BR ends after you
> either half or double it, period.

Right. And the concept of losing 50% of your bank 50% of the time makes no mention whatsoever of the doubling aspect. When discussing Kelly and losing a certain percentage of your bank, the experiment doesn't stop if you happen to double your bank. So doing has no significance at all.

> The only thing I can think of to reconcile the
> percentage difference you quoted with that of the
> chart are the respective assumptions. The chart uses
> pure kelly which is what you were discussing. When you
> say the chance of losing 1/2 the starting BR is 50%
> (pure kelly), do you stop playing if the bank has been
> doubled or is the upward growth of the bank infinite?

See above. The upward growth of the bank is infinite. It is always infinite in ROR problems. People have the mistaken notion that ROR has soimething to do with busting before doubling. Doubling has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

> Other then that, I do not see any other difference in
> the assumptions between what you said and that of the
> chart.

Very big "other than that"!

Don

[MJ]