“Your example confuses an extremely high risk of ruin with a completely acceptable level. Playing in a slightly higher game within the constraints of your bankroll where you hold a positive expectation may increase your risk of ruin from 0.25% to 0.5% (numbers merely illustrative) compared to playing in a 2k/4k game where you raise your risk of ruin from 0.25% to 60% over 1 weekend.
Also, in your mind you’re compartmentalizing the 2 different games. Your bankroll doesn’t compartmentalize. It only understands risk and expectation. Taking on a slightly larger yet acceptable level of risk to maximize your expectation is clearly the correct play.
Saying you’ll never reach the long run in the bigger game is irrelevant. You’re only choosing to look at negative variance.”
HemmaCuda,
Thanks for the response…..I would agree with the 2nd paragraph in that it sets forth clearly a concept I believe is valid. The only comment i would make is your ” slightly higher” comment as it applies to what i have been discussing.
The question would be is going from 20-40 to 100-200 240 hours a year a slightly higher move? My thought is clearly it is not but then again….maybe it is:)
The example I made was merely to show clearly the possible negative outcome that could arise. Obviously it is not a real world situation. But at what limit does the idea not become relevant?
Yes I agree I am only looking at negative variance since that is the only side of the probability curve that can create these situations. When your considering the bankroll you need to play at different limits regularly I do not think you look at positive variance…but only the potential negative outcomes and their probabilities.
The only point I am making is that the concept of acceptable levels of risk and maximizing expectations assume by their very nature that their will be an adequate sample size ie playing hours. Unfortunately this is not always the case so….then how do you adjust these ideas….when you are faced with a certainty that the sample size will not be sufficient…and it seems to me…that you have to be much more conservative when that is factored in.
It would be great to hear other opinions…since I enjoy this type of give and take. I might mention….these ideas of mine are off the top of my head….and certainly poker players that do this for a living would be more adept at coming up with the answers.
Now if we were talking about how to pick a jury in a murder case..or a medical malpractice case you guys would have to defer to me:) Or perhaps how to land a single engine plane without any nose gear:)
thanks for the input…would enjoy hearing more
RickJ
We won our play on San Diego on Saturday for a +1.44 day. Its seems with San diego if they can keep it close or have a lead into the 7th their bull pen can close it out for them. A big if!
Today nothing in the NBA……. One thing I have noticed is that if your thinking of betting on the favorite…ie today San Antonio….the better approach might be to take them in the 2nd half if the clippers have a strong first half. Similar to the way the favorites have gone in many of the 2nd round games.
I do not know of a way to run the numbers to see if this would pan out….my guess is it most likely would not if taken across the board….But as I handicap the game….at least last night….Oklahoma City as a small road favorite seemed to be the right side….however you bucking a 55% across the board home bias in the 2nd round of the playoffs….something that does not seem the right seem to do….so…with the lakers ahead by 10 at the half….you could of gotten a nice price on Okl for the game ie +5 instead of -2
Just something to look at.
In baseball today nothing stands out this morning as a play. Of interest of system setups on the totals are on a 6-0 run!
System setups:
System 4
Cleveland -112
dodgers U7
Cleveland U 7.5
System X
Cleveland -112
Cleveland U 7.5
If anything changes I will update later.
Good Luck Today
RickJ
Rickjshandicappingpicks.com
Twitter: rickjsportplays
Twitter: rickjswingtrade
1 play so far in Baseball:
LAA-D Haren
930 SD-E STULTS +144
RickJ
“Your decision makes psychological sense, but from a mathematical standpoint, the fact that you spend the year underbetting your bankroll by playing 15/30 instead of 75/150 should not stop you from playing 75/150 during the WSOP if you feel it’s significantly +EV and your bankroll can truly handle it. Yes, serious bettors want to minimize variance, but we also want to maximize EV, so unless you feel your edge is pretty small in those 75/150 WSOP games, I don’t think your decision is mathematically justified. If you have any professional gambling friends (preferably sports bettors as some poker-only pros aren’t as well-versed in this sort of thing), I think it would be interesting if you ran this scenario by them and see what they say.”
When I first read this my initial reaction was that you are correct. But after giving it more thought I do not think its that clear cut.
First there is no question that there is a big psychological component to my decision. As I get older I become more risk adverse perhaps overly so.
But lets take a look at the mathematical standpoint. Say you have a unlimited bankroll. And your approach to playing poker is to play in any game that is available where you have a positive ev regardless of the stakes.
There are certain circumstance where if you take this approach you could end up a lifetime loser in poker despite the fact that you have a positive ev!
The variable that is missing that I feel is important is the ability to get a significant number of hours in at the highest stakes so that your expectancy approaches whatever positive ev you have. The more hours you play the more your return is going to get in line with your advantage.
So the key ingredient to that is the availability of the game to play in. So to take it to the extreme….say you had an opportunity to play for a weekend in a 2000-4000 game. And lets assume you have a positive ev in that game and that the game would only be available to play in that weekend only. After that its back to the mundane mid limits. And you have a bad weekend and lose 100 big bets…$400,000!
Now that is the extreme…but sometimes looking at extremes can give you some insight into analyzing situations.
In Vegas right now the only omaha 8 game available that has a positive ev is the 15-30 with a 20-40 kill. The option to play higher will exist 6 weeks out of the year during the world series. Playing 5 days a week that would be 30 days..at 8 hours a day on the average …240 hours. Certainly not near enough to expect your return to mirror your positive ev. In 10 years you would be up to 2400 hours…which you would then expect things to wash out.
So while not the extreme of the example…..its a consideration.
My thought is to make it simple…if the game is available all year round with plenty of players…then the higher limit is a no brainer assuming you have the bankroll requirements.
RickJ
Friday we had a 1-2 day with both our baseball plays losing and neither were close….but our nba play on philadelphia won. They looked pretty dismal the first half but pulled it together to win by 9. That brings our playoff record this year to 5-0!
Today nothing in the nba and nothing in the nhl.
Also nothing clear cut right now as far as plays in baseball but there are a few that could develop later.
System setups ( I do not bet these)
system 4
Philadelphia +104
San diego +136
San Fran U7
Cleveland U 7.5
Houston O9
system X
Cleveland U 7.5
Good Luck Today
RickJ
Rickjshandicappingpicks.com
Twitter: rickjsportplays
Twitter: rickjswingtrade
