Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com Kelly vs ROR math
 Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#11
May 5th, 2011, 01:11 PM
 Midwestern Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: The Riviera Posts: 153

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kewljason With Kelly if you keep resizing downword, you will not be resizing your entire spread as most likely the minimum wager is set by table minimums, so you are resizing your top wager and reducing your spread. this makes it more difficult to recoup earlier losses. Imagine trying to win back losses acheived with a \$10-\$100 spread when kelly resizing has now reduced your spread to \$10-\$50.
I like this idea alot though for long-term bankroll growth. By figuring out whatever kelly bet we would do at different TC (i.e. the betramp i figured out earlier)

As the bankroll grows, the size of your bets grow when you have advantage, but at lower TC situations, Kelly still calls for minimum bets.

KJ, that means that even though you play 25-400, you should try playing 5-400, beacuse you are probably overbetting in some low-edge scenarios. I can see you getting away with this by betting 25 off the top of a shoe (so a PB eyes you as a \$25 player and still thinks you spread 1-16), but scale it down little by little so that you're betting 5 if the count isnt fully TC+1. This increases your true spread to 1-80 which sounds to me like a very powerful game.
#12
May 21st, 2011, 06:44 PM
 blackjack avenger Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,435
Conservative Kelly Resizing Wins

Betting .5 kelly has the same growth rate as 1.5 kelly but the former has far less variance.

Betting double kelly the bank meanders up and down.

Betting over double kelly your bank shrinks.

Given the above it's probably best to be sure to always bet less then kelly.

Probably way less then kelly if you have a large bank.
__________________
Keys to Counting Success:
Mental toughness and discipline
Play quality games aggressively
Play 1,000 hours
Bet conservatively to last 1,000 hours

#13
May 21st, 2011, 07:02 PM
 tthree Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,148

The big rolls I talk to like 1/4 kelly.
#14
June 25th, 2011, 07:35 AM
 blackjack avenger Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,435
terminology

Fixed ror is just that. A 1% ror means you have a 1 in 100 chance of losing all.

In theory Kelly continuous resizing does not lose all, but in the real world one can lose so much they cannot play due to table minimums. Also, we are not sure of our advantage and Kelly punishes for overbetting. With smaller banks half Kelly may be reasonable with larger banks using third to fourth Kelly. The more important bank preservation the more conservative the bets.
__________________
Keys to Counting Success:
Mental toughness and discipline
Play quality games aggressively
Play 1,000 hours
Bet conservatively to last 1,000 hours

#15
September 16th, 2011, 04:47 AM
 Mersenne Twister Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 9

To predict the magnitude of fluctuation,
I recommend this book,

“An introduction to stochastic modeling Third Edition ”
by Samuel Karlin, Howard M. Taylor

It's better than Don's BJA3.
#16
September 16th, 2011, 08:04 AM
 blackjack avenger Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,435
theory vs reality

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tthree The big rolls I talk to like 1/4 kelly.
.992 for 1/4
.998 for 1/5
Chance of never losing half with continuous resizing. So in theory 1/5 does not give much more safety. In the real world risk of drawdown is probably higher due to human error.

A problem with 1/4 is you still may have to resize down on losses which raises N0. At 1/8 + Kelly, resizing is less of an issue, which some pros use.
__________________
Keys to Counting Success:
Mental toughness and discipline
Play quality games aggressively
Play 1,000 hours
Bet conservatively to last 1,000 hours

#17
September 16th, 2011, 09:18 AM
 Mersenne Twister Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by blackjack avenger .2 for 1/4 .8 for 1/5 Chance of losing half with continuous resizing. So in theory 1/5 does not give much more safety. In the real world risk of drawdown is probably higher due to human error. A problem with 1/4 is you still may have to resize down on losses which raises N0. At 1/8 + Kelly resizing is less of an issue, which some pros use.

"Chance of losing half with continuous resizing" is
0.78125% for 1/4 Kelly
0.1953125% for 1/5 Kelly
#18
September 16th, 2011, 09:25 AM
 blackjack avenger Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,435
thanx

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mersenne Twister "Chance of losing half with continuous resizing" is 0.78125% for 1/4 Kelly 0.1953125% for 1/5 Kelly
For catching my error in text. I believe I fixed it. On your numbers, well yeah if you want to get precise!
__________________
Keys to Counting Success:
Mental toughness and discipline
Play quality games aggressively
Play 1,000 hours
Bet conservatively to last 1,000 hours

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Forums     General     Skilled Play - Card Counting, Advanced Strategies, Game Variations, Theory and Math     Blackjack - Online Casinos     Site Announcements and Administrative Issues Geographic Areas     Las Vegas     Western USA     Midwest USA     Southern USA     Eastern USA     Outside of USA Miscellaneous     Blackjack - CardCounter.com archives

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 AM.