Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #21  
Old October 19th, 2011, 02:12 PM
sagefr0g's Avatar
sagefr0g sagefr0g is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,141
Default

[QUOTE=blackjack avenger;257403]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefr0g View Post
along this line of reasoning, let me ask you a question, since you seem to know a lot about Kelly stuff.
well, first off, speaking of betting, Kelly stuff and bank roll, well the roll so far has more than doubled.
the question being, when you are 'properly' betting and making positive EV plays, errrhh well, i dunno, is there some significance to reaching the point where the roll is doubled, far as Kelly theory goes?
seems i've seen a lot of talk about the point where advantage players have doubled their roll, in conjunction with Kelly stuff. can you shed any light on that subject, ie. significance of doubling the bank roll and Kelly stuff?
have anything to do with N0, maybe?

Why talk about doubling bank? Are you retiring? So assuming one is going to play on the risk of drawdown numbers approach the infinite numbers quickly.

Chances of losing % of bank with Kelly resizing:
50% chance of losing 50% of bank with Kelly
80% chance of losing 20% of bank with Kelly

Chances of losing % of bank with 1/4 Kelly:
.08% chance of losing 50% of bank with 1/4 Kelly
21% chance of losing 20% of bank with 1/4 Kelly

Begs the question. Why would anyone play a positive expectation game with an ror? Now, what if one figured the advantage correctly on an unsure game but bet kelly? They face a 50% chance of losing half, if that happens I would think confidence would suffer.

Kelly & N0? Kelly raises N0 by a factor of 9. However betting 1/4 Kelly does not raise N0 greatly though growth suffers.
not retiring, lol, i already am........
errhhh but, so, there is just so much talk about doubling bank, cause it's a warm fuzzy experience, i guess? lol
nuthing really mathematically significant about doubling the bank from the perspective of Kelly, i guess?
ok, jus was wondering.
  #22  
Old October 20th, 2011, 12:20 PM
sagefr0g's Avatar
sagefr0g sagefr0g is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,141
Default doubling bank

so how about say once you double bank.......
good time to think about re-sizing, maybe?
  #23  
Old October 20th, 2011, 05:31 PM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default Double Trouble

We know Kelly theory is constant resizing which is difficult for us mortals. However, we can get close. Let's say a Kelly bank is 500 bets. As long as one has at least 500 or more bets they can resize their bank with wins and losses. In BJ resizing at each chip level would be easy. Example, from $25 to $50 bet requires doubling bank where $50 to $75 requires a 50% bank increase.

I dont see a difference in doubling a bank plus or minus $1. Once you decide to resize one suffers the good & bad moving forward. The more you resize down on losses the safer your bank but the longer the long run. The more you resize up on wins the faster the growth but an increased risk of drawdown.

Paul Samuelson makes a strong argument to not resize.

Last edited by blackjack avenger; October 20th, 2011 at 05:43 PM.
  #24  
Old October 21st, 2011, 11:33 AM
sagefr0g's Avatar
sagefr0g sagefr0g is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjack avenger View Post
We know Kelly theory is constant resizing which is difficult for us mortals. However, we can get close. Let's say a Kelly bank is 500 bets. As long as one has at least 500 or more bets they can resize their bank with wins and losses. In BJ resizing at each chip level would be easy. Example, from $25 to $50 bet requires doubling bank where $50 to $75 requires a 50% bank increase.

I dont see a difference in doubling a bank plus or minus $1. Once you decide to resize one suffers the good & bad moving forward. The more you resize down on losses the safer your bank but the longer the long run. The more you resize up on wins the faster the growth but an increased risk of drawdown.

Paul Samuelson makes a strong argument to not resize.
hmm, guess maybe the above compliments the tactic of going less than Kelly sorta thing, but aka Samuelson, maybe stick with a fixed bet, at least if you don't have a big draw down sorta thing.
hmmm, what we need here is a futures bet on some losing threshold, just not so much we don't lose to much if it doesn't come to pass, erhh is that what the banks were doing?. loss rebate, maybe?
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC