Does EV ever Trump Game Quality?

And the ONLY time you need to worry about your EV "in relation to risk" is in the case of long shot bets, which simply do not occur in standard BJ bets.

I think many posters have answered the OP question. The answer is pretty simple. The expectation value expressed as a percent could be misleading as you lose some information due to information smearing, the best thing is to use an expectation value in units/hour i.e win rate and specifying number of rounds per hour and what fraction of Kelly you are using.
SCORE as defined by Don Schlesinger is a standardized win rate with fixed number of rounds per hour (100), bankroll size ($10000) , and full Kelly, making it easier for comparing two different games.

kelly being a utility function maybe subjectifies the question?

the question becomes, who am i?, what do i want? how is this going to affect me psychologically? is quality of life while investing plus ev?

even if it may not happen is what happens if the specter of risk is realized.

if money is the ultimate goal risk be dammed, lol, since it's always gonna be there anyway,

i suspect utility is more of a factor than math is able to fathom. the jungle, lol, is more of an unknown than we think, how much bounty it will yield for any given individual just may depend more on that individual than we can know.:cat:

just piping in here, lol. i can't even begin to fathom the question, don't fully understand kelly, N0, SCORE or score.
EV?, i think i have half a clue, lol.
whatever, maybe i'm wrong but i think kelly being a utility function maybe subjectifies the question?:whip:
cause well anyway, i just know this, from real life experience, heck man when i'm out in the jungle i'm always making decisions. should i make this play or maybe not. which opportunity should i take a shot at first? ect. ect. ..probably i shouldn't be bothering with such decisions, but ok just me, the whole thing is underpinned with this utility question.
at some point, the question becomes, who am i?, what do i want? how is this going to affect me psychologically? is quality of life while investing plus ev? but ok, i know that's pretty much bull crap, but it's real, lol. even more real, even if it may not happen is what happens if the specter of risk is realized.
well whatever, come to think of it, if money is the ultimate goal then isn't icnt's solution of units expected over time or hands played the ultimate answer? risk be dammed, lol, since it's always gonna be there anyway,
just me maybe, i suspect utility is more of a factor than math is able to fathom. the jungle, lol, is more of an unknown than we think, how much bounty it will yield for any given individual just may depend more on that individual than we can know.:cat:

Money is it, as you say, up to a level of risk you are willing to take. That's how I figure everything. What I am working on is how to stick to it.

yeah how to stick to it.
see i think you and i have a situation in common, both of us have this recreational sort of a foundation far as this AP stuff goes.
retired, so yeah heck yeah, extra money coming is, yeah man that's icing on the cake, but ultimately not really that big a deal, so part of the ev is the action. it's got a sporting aspect for us. therein lay a problem cause an action junkie an AP don't wanna be. the best pro AP i know told me, "if you're not bored you're not doing it right", lol.
see? it's a bit of a paradox, no?
the trick to me, is to really learn to enjoy boredom, lol.
but still it's not so simple, cause well maybe this is voodoo, just me, i think it has to do with one's status in the grand scheme of things, ie. what are one's needs.:
Ye may make plays for yourselves, and your mates,
and your cubs as they need, and ye can;
But make plays not for pleasure of making plays,
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=192946&postcount=71

at least maybe we (seeing as how we a'int spring chickens or broke) can take solace in the idea behind this verse:
Cave-Right is the right of the Father --
to hunt by himself for his own:
He is freed of all calls to the Pack;
he is judged by the Council alone.

Because of his age and his cunning,
because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open,
the word of your Head Wolf is Law.

heh heh heh

Like the poetry.

The boredom. Yeah. I find counting superissimo boring. Then that scares me 'cause being so relaxed and bored looking must make me look like a counter, and I don't want to look like that. That's where I put on the act a bit, because otherwise I "look" too much in control, and that can't be good.

So I've got snap myself out of it all the time and be a good ploppy, not an ostentatious one (most the time), but just an ordinary run-of-the-mill everyday ploppy. But I like how some of the APs or more knowledgeable APs do the drunk act, something I learned in my pool room days (slap a little whiskey cologne around my face and neck), when you wanted to tempt lesser hustlers to take advantage of you. It can't hurt to look four sails to the wind, and it does break up the monotony and boredom of the process.

Yup, tomorrow I'm going to the casino and so I will take that opportunity to have a little fun with it. BTW, it's the casino where Newt used to play the MMs. So I'll have two plays, which also helps break up the boredom.

PS-- When I first started counting I played the ostentatious ploppy, sweating and nervous and jumping up when winning with max bet out. Still do that to a limited extent. But the point being is that "acting" nervous and high strung can get you being that way too, and that can have an adverse effect on your game, 'cause it's hard to still be that quiet little computer on the inside watching one's antics on the outside. You want to be the way you act, so the deception is at least for me hard to pull off without some danger of being the idiot I'm play acting as. Many would say that shouldn't be too hard in my case, but everyone has critics and if they didn't, they must never have stood for anything at all or done anything that mattered anyway.

The boredom. Yeah. I find counting superissimo boring.

Sucker,

I am glad to hear that we are on good terms in the academic arena.

Now permit me to explain why your reasoning is incorrect here, as relates to to this example.

You are confusing TBA (Total Bet Advantage) with IBA (Initial Bet Advantage), and therein lies the problem. You are not considering the fact that the advantage on your hand changes when you decide to split or double-down. In fact, you are making it less likely that you'll win the hand, at the exchange of being able to put more money on the table. In the example I gave, the advantage relates to your initial bet.

So, back to the example. You'd have a 2% advantage with respect to your initial wager on your hand if you decided to take a hit (and play your hand from there. However, if you were willing to put up another max-bet by doubling-down, then you'd have a 2.1% advantage, with respect to your initial wager.

However, by doubling-down, you do not have an advantage of 2.1%, with respect to your total wager (IOW, your initial bet plus double-down bet). Indeed, by doubling down, you are decreasing your chance of actually winning the hand, and thus, you are decreasing the advantage with respect to your total wager. However, so long as you are not decreasing your advantage by more than a factor of 2, then the EV is still positive because you are doubling your wager. Therefore, the EV-maximizing index is determined by the point where you are giving up less than half of your edge to be able to double your wager. With this enlightenment, let's revisit the example.

By taking a hit and playing our hand from there we have an advantage of 2% with respect to our initial wager, but if we are willing to double the money on the table then we'd have an advantage of 2.1%, with respect to our initial wager. This then means that our advantage on the hand has only become 1.05%, but by doubling our wager, we get a 2.1% return with respect to our initial wager.

So, if we assume our max-bet is $200, we have an expectation of acquiring $4.00 by not doubling (since we have a 2.0% advantage). However, if we put out another $200 to double-down our total wager becomes $400, but doubling decreases our chance of winning the hand to 1.05%. Therefore, by doubling we expect to earn $4.20. Hence, we have jeopardized another $200, just for an additional expectation of $0.20.

As you can see, your advantage decreases by doubling, but so long as you are able to double your bet and your advantage decreases by less than a factor of 2, then the EV will be positive. However, looking at things from only an EV perspective leads to some non-SCORE maximizing outcomes that greatly increase RoR for a disproportionate return.

Furthermore, TBA (Total Bet Advantage) is not to be confused with IBA (Initial Bet Advantage).

Best,

SP

Because of his age and his cunning,
because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open,
the word of your Head Wolf is Law.

Shut the f**k up! .. z:whip:g

Money is it, as you say, up to a level of risk you are willing to take. That's how I figure everything. What I am working on is how to stick to it.

If you bet over double kelly resizing, your bank shrinks.
If you bet double kelly resizing your bank fluctuates and does not grow.

If you bet kelly resizing down to 1/5 kelly resizing one still has a chance of losing half their bank.

If you bet about 1/6th kelly resizing CE = WR and then you are just playing for the long run; ror is all but eliminated, as is the chance of a major drawdown. One should not lose half. This is probably the real world practical infinite bank and perhaps when you can chase raw EV even if raising NO and lowering SCORE and score.

:joker::whip:
good cards

Because of his age and his cunning,
because of his gripe and his paw,
In all that the Law leaveth open,
the word of your Head Wolf is Law.

Shut the f**k up! .. z:whip:g

awe ok zen, but only cause i like you.

You better like me or you will know my gripe and paw. -zenWolf

That's all too complicated for me. I just keep my RoR low based on a fixed replenishible bankroll. You don't have to resize, if the size remains the same. But if I were to keep losing, I would try something else, like tending bar or selling real estate, if I needed the money.