why you just might want to think or what do you really know?

this link has information that far as i know is correct or not but at least it's an interesting read on a subject that is perhaps deeper than one might suspect at first glance.
http://www.bjrnet.com/articles/kellyfaq.htm
note the reference to utility functions. do you understand utility functions? i don't but i'd like to suggest that as this link infers there is more to the Kelly Criterion than just blackjack. the point being your bankroll and the risk involved with respect to playing blackjack is not a closed system with respect to the world we live in. that being the case the true risk involved in playing blackjack according to orthodox methods is more complicated than the Kelley Criterion implies. just consider the uncertainty we have recently experienced in the world economy. this uncertainty hides true risks for not only workers, consumers and investors but has implications for your risk as a blackjack player. so really recent history and long past history is evidence of the pitfalls of utility theory and our true understanding of risk. point being you may think you know your risk when playing blackjack but truth be known you don't. what you do know is the risk involved for a computer playing in a safe haven isolated from the real world as long as the computer doesn't crash. are you able to match a computers flawless playing attributes?

but that is not all with respect to our considerations of blackjack and risk and reward. this orthodox stuff we know is probability based that relies on assumptions and heuristics that are not as exacting as we would like to think. read up on what Thorpe has to say about it and something about the derivation:
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm (Archive copy)
ultimately one might ask ones' self, do i understand all that? lol, well i don't. another question might be, is it wise to take risk on things one doesn't fully understand? i'd just say that even if you can understand the derivation of this stuff you are going to find unexacting assumptions and heuristics.
k_c has an excellent article on some things that even large scale computer simulations may leave left unknown.
http://www.bjstrat.net/shuffles.html

as previously mentioned one might wonder just how close one is able to play with respect to the flawless play of a computer. i think Bojack, and exhibitcaa might tell you not as close as you are libel to think. if you had been lucky enough to participate in the chat on Thursday night 18jun09 you would probably have realized this fact after reading some of what exhibitcaa had to say on the matter. read some of Bojack's posts and you will see how important he thinks proficient play is. it's not a matter of consensus on the issue, it's a matter of how it is when it comes to playing proficiency compared to how it should or would have been done by a computer that has spit out some expectation with a correlated risk of ruin that one may be banking ones prospects on.
as an aside i'd like to mention an interesting private chat i had with a gentleman Thursday night concerning computers and intelligence. it was the gentleman's contention that at the 'asymptotic' rate at which computers are improving that sooner or later they will surpass the intelligence of mankind. this same thing was told me over thirty years ago. lol, well it hasn't happened yet and i disagreed with the gentleman that it would ever happen. still it's interesting to note how well computers can do with stuff like blackjack, chess and ect. they can quite handily beat the heck out of us in many instances. begs the question, can we be that good?

so what does this all mean? why blab on all this stuff?
it begs the question, who are you, how do you play blackjack, whose money do you use, yours or others. if it's your money do you think that means something different to you than if you played with others money?
just how good are you compared to a computers flawless play and just how flawless is a computer anyway? maybe try out Kasi's spread sheet and see how you stack up. then at least you might see what part of the ballpark your in comparatively speaking for a computers perfect world.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/attachment.php?attachmentid=2214&d=1238727413

just some things to think about. if you think, i think you might discover new and intriguing things about all this stuff. maybe even come up with new approaches of playing blackjack that better fit you and who you are.

this is part of what i think i learned from my recent experience at the bj-bash.

Good Stuff... sagefrOg!

thanks daddybo, like i'm really just a lost puppy, but at least i know it.
that's about all i know, lmao.

here is some stuff that strikes me as relevant from the link:
http://www.bjrnet.com/articles/kellyfaq.htm

lol, i dunno, that statement bolded is just so easy to let go, to overlook, thing is it must be really significant or many professionals wouldn't take those measures. i guess full Kelly is that 13% ror, lol, the magic number i keep wondering about. that is a pretty high risk percentage when apparently the conventional wisdom (from what i've heard) is to keep the risk percentage <= 1%. some day maybe i'll understand the significance of that 13% number virtually always being involved with the optimal bet and kelly bank, full kelly. my guess it involves the limits of the best one can do long run as far as that logarithmic rate of growth stuff.
i think it's something to do about if you consistently bet twice as high as optimal kelly bets your guaranteed to go bust, sort of thing.
what ever, as wonderful, apparently as full kelly is allowing one to maximize the expected logarithm of your total bankroll rather than trying to maximize the expected bankroll itself, it makes me wonder since 1.) no one wants to do it and 2.) it yields a ROR that nobody wants to live with.
3.) and it's claimed the fluctuations involved with full kelly are abhorrent.
then to even make kelly work you generally need some humongous bankroll, even when you use that fractionated stuff.
what ever, it's apparently the best known way to get optimal results in the long run, long as one doesn't forget the implications of an associated risk of ruin, i guess it's all good. supposedly you get to N0 and your good to go for virtually ever.
just me and i'm probably wrong, what i see all that kelly stuff is an 'ideal' goal, that is when i relate it to the confusion about money matters that i live in may have a serious flaw, lmao. that being the case i'd rather use my own mind with respect to betting decisions on the battle field of the green felt and hold the kelly stuff in my mental mind as some sort of lofty ideal goal, in short relegate it to guiding knowledge. that being the case for me, i guess the danger is betting to low and eventually ending up with a 100% ror. i doubt i'd end up over betting as i'm a bottom line watcher to the nth degree. just me i'm sure but i'd estimate that if i was to bet full kelly for the long term i'd probably end up with psychiatrist bills and pepto bismal bills that would far out strip anything i'd ever end up winning.:laugh::whip:

then i love this statement in the link above:
and this statement:
and:
heh, heh, now isn't that interesting. getting all subjective with allusions towards ideas of 'reasonable' stuff such as living expenses, comfortable lifestyle, ect.. how mathematical is that?
my question is do i have any say in this matter?
yeah, i know sure i do, lol, just as long i guess as one remembers one can always lose everything one has or for that matter doesn't even have.
what ever, just to me what those sort of statements means is that real world, the world outside the Gaussian realm of the casino does in fact have it's sticky fingers reaching into that Gaussian realms back pocket.

just me, maybe, thing is amongst the orthodox ranks, what i see is this lock step, black jackbooted goose step mentality fettered by mathematics that precludes thought beyond the thought that gave us orthodox blackjack theory. doubtless when it comes to mathematics one strays into other thoughts and actions at ones peril, but this is not so when it comes to the perils of the real world whose blood sucking tentacles fish their slimy ways even into the Gaussian realm of the casino.

my vision of horror is that our friends on blackjackinfo.com might blindly follow the promise of mathematics with huge bankrolls of their own hard earned money right down into the pit of oblivion we so fondly know of as realization of risk of ruin while over estimating their ability to play blackjack like a computer.
then but what do i know, just me, i find comfort in what is hopefully rational thought, knowledge and what is mostly viewed derisively as ploppy logic. too me most ploppies as not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, just perhaps not knowledgeable about blackjack.
all that said, paradoxically i have a profound respect for basic strategy. well actually orthodox blackjack theory as well, just i know i can't do it very well.

just i know in my case what i think in the long term i can be happy as a lark to lose, becomes some how not so true in the short term. go figure.

the other side of the coin

i continue to have reservations on certain elements of primarily recreational players strictly following orthodox blackjack advantage play methods that professional players use. i've tried to address some of the concerns regarding the question of utility theory. i believe there is another side of the coin related to playing proficiency.

it is apparent from personal experience, having read posts and engaged in chats that many advantage players who are not fully professional advantage players engage in lengthy sessions of play that range from play all or some mix of play all and wonging in or out. when i say lengthy sessions i'm not sure exactly how long but lets just say from six to twelve hours. the credo is of course, the more play at an advantage the better.
the question becomes, is the play really at an advantage?

point 1.
recently i read as ExhibitCAA chatted about his experience with several or more team players when they compared confidence levels regarding a certain element of advantage play that they evaluated in common. none of them agreed with one another as to what the situation was.

point 2.
this time regarding a post by ExhibitCAA excerpted only the one sentence statement here:
"Do you understand the difference between a "computer-optimal" strategy and a "human-feasible" strategy?"
from this link: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=132869&postcount=15

point 3.
again from chats and posts by professional players it's become apparent to me that it can be shown that would be advantage players can be totally unsuspecting of significant errors in how they engage in attempting advantage play.

point 4.
again from chats and posts it's apparent that even professional players engage in advantage plays that involve both degrees of uncertainty and error (see point1). additionally while professionals may test for proficiency of play, it has not been demonstrated as far as i know that they are able to prove proficiency of play for periods of time ranging from six to twelve hours in duration, field observation and anecdotal results not with standing. (questions arise for field observation such as who watches the observers proficiency)

so just the point of points is the idea that a less experienced primarily recreational player may have trouble for meeting the playing proficiency of a computer over extended periods of time. consequentially it's not at all impossible or unlikely for such a player while following strict orthodox advantage play methods and betting large sums of money while trying to match the flawless play of a computer to fall unfortunately short of his desired goal.

all of the above said, imho Eliot Jacobson in "The Blackjack Zone" has i believe argued convincingly that mistakes are not the end of the world, so to speak. while i wouldn't argue that such an idea is untrue, i for one wonder when large sums of money are being layed on the table for extended periods of time by less than professional players whether or not some thoughtful measures might be in order.