|
By:
Edge is an expression of you return as a percentage of your risk - if you take an individual individual bet on a roulette wheel the house' risk is much higher than the player's. Work through the example yourself if you don't see it at first.
However - if there is more than one bet on the table then the house's risk is reduced. If you wanted to calculate the house' edge on a particular set of bets all of which were struck on the same spin you'd get a different figure. Imagine if there was one chip on every number - the house would now have no overall risk because whatever happens all the losses would pay out the winner - unless 0 won in which case the house collects everything. Effectively the casino would be laying a 100% book on an incomplete market, it would have a potential return with no risk, so it's edge on this set of bets would be infinite. |
|
By:
The Management
You are wasting energy swatting this fly (zipper). He has chosen a forum name which suggests he knows what lies behindthe forum name and which may be very apt judging by the posts, becuase most zippers can be found on mens trousers concealing a p***k |
|
By:
aye robot ~ i applaud you. you are the most helpful person on this forum.
|
|
By:
He can afford to be, the money he is making from the existence of BF.
|
|
By:
You sound like Ali Baba Mgt.
|
|
By:
I think you're confusing Ali Baba, The Management and Jesus FAFH. Probably the only time that's ever happened.
|
|
By:
Geez maybe I am.
Which is Mgt ? |
|
By:
I think Ali Baba had a band of 40 thieves.
Relevant ? |
|
By:
I don't know.
Should have been if he wasn't. Ask your kids ( I have none to ask ). |
|
By:
I know you were messing.
Didn't know the last fact though. Pretty obvious I suppose. |
|
By:
Btw does JC stand for Julie Christie ?
|
|
By:
We agree on something at last.
Took a while but the end result is good. |
|
By:
Thanks for the reply AyeR, but as much as I understand the calculations it still seems odd in the real world.
When you think about it from the house' perspective though, they had to put 35 stakes at risk 37 times to get their profit of 1 stake, that's a total exposure of 1295 stakes. If the house wanted to use kelly to calculate their optimal liability the figure they used for edge would be just 1/1295, or 0.0007%. As far as I can see, for your calculation to work you have to deny logic and assume that the house could lose every spin (37x35 stakes - 1295) to one punter each spin (otherwise the house would redeem stakes on other numbers each spin) which would be impossible in the real world. If many punters were involved it's also possible that every number could be covered with one stake, giving the house an edge of 2.7%. |
|
By:
award-winning stuff. thanks for the explanation of backers edge and layers edge, aye, investor, sandown.
|
|
By:
Trevh, The house COULD lose every spin, that's the point. It's not very likely, but it's possible just the same as it's possible for 1.01s to get turned over.
You're right when you say the house edge is increased when more than one player plays, I covered this already yesterday at 17:28 - but to save you the scrolling here it is again: However - if there is more than one bet on the table then the house's risk is reduced. If you wanted to calculate the house' edge on a particular set of bets all of which were struck on the same spin you'd get a different figure. Imagine if there was one chip on every number - the house would now have no overall risk because whatever happens all the losses would pay out the winner - unless 0 won in which case the house collects everything. Effectively the casino would be laying a 100% book on an incomplete market, it would have a potential return with no risk, so it's edge on this set of bets would be infinite. |
|
By:
Whilst we're on roulette, let's look at how many times you would have to spin the roulette wheel before it becomes very likely that you'll hit a zero.
Since the chance of hitting zero is 1/37 many people would think that after 37 spins it's pretty darned certain - but guess what - many people are wrong. It's interesting because it's a nice example of how you work out the probability of an event by calculating the probability of the converse (the same event NOT happening). On any given spin the chances of hitting zero are 1/37. Therefore the chances of NOT hitting zero are 36/37. After 37 spins your chances of NOT having hit zero are (36/37)^37 That works out as 0.36 ish. From that we can infer that the probability that you will hit zero are 0.74, which (for reasons that I don't really understand) many people prefer to express as 74%. So not quite the certainty that many people think. In gambling you quite often work things out using this kind of methodology. |
|
By:
Whats all this about 8 /11 split TM ?
|
|
By:
This is to The Frog, Hi follow punter , you have started loads of post re value. and me zip , has always said there aint no value any race unless you have got the winner Take this 4.50 Stanley Rigby , about odds on zip will take any odds and zip will lay the rest any odds thats the value its called Gambling fingers crossed.. when your wrong pay with a smile ... its only a bit of fun
|
|
By:
fvck off zipper
|
|
By:
Avocado .. get a life . if thats all you got to say
|
|
By:
zipper
The Management just sent me a text to say that he's nipped outside for a ****. |
|
By:
sorry zippy
|
|
By:
Avocado if you had a brain in your head you should have hold back with your comments till my tip got beat.. dont hold you breath MUG
|
|
By:
Heres one for you statiticians.. This Stanley Rigby 4.50 Stanley is on a four break .. how many horse have won four on the bounce on the A/W ???.
|
|
By:
Toptwo , you gave zip a smile no a laugh re TM nipped out for a ****
heres my advice **** , booze ,. women cards , gambling .. pets enjoy em all ,, cause you only live once ,. this is not a rerun |
|
By:
http://www.professionalgambler.com/debunking.html
completely destroys the idea that Kelly can win you more as you will do your tank with bad money management |
|
By:
Err isn't Kelly all about good money mgt ?
|
|
By:
That article has been posted on here before and is written by an idiot.
|
|
By:
The guy who wrote it has the mathematical ability of a nine year old - a particularly stupid nine year old, but a nine year old nonetheless.
|
|
By:
Frog , this Kelly nonsence 4.50 about 190 k bet, ok it will go up two about 600k why cause there gamblers how much of that 190k is yours .. honest answers only
|
|
By:
zip on big time stanley
|
|
By:
Stanley Rigby , Game Over for zip .. taking the wife and the nurse out to zips eating place .. the drinks are on me .
|
|
By:
the pg hypothesis makes a lot of sense to me. Over stake and the losing sequence will wipe you out. Mathematical probability ensures that all gamblers will have a long losing sequence at some stage.
|
|
By:
I don't wish to get into this too much, but I would just point out that with Kelly - or for that matter any "percentage of bank" approach you can never be wiped out.
|
|
By:
Lori ,, your spot on all this nonsence about value , take this board 3 x 15 - minus your socks add 5 /201 your under pants bet 000.2 of your bank ..... get on
|
|
By:
Ok, so now having skimmed the article I'd like to sign up to join the "that article is horse-sh1t" team. He basically just doesn't understand the Kelly criterion.
|
|
By:
Without wishing to go on another "and another thing" rant.....
|
|
By:
Most of what's said about gambling is just b0llocks, trotted out by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The Kelly criterion ISN'T just more of the same, it's the subject of a proper mathematical proof. Than means that if you can dis-prove it that's a real mathematical achievement, you should be looking for a professorship in a university, or a research fellowship at the very least.
I'm not saying that this can't be done, just that if your mate from down the pub "reckons" that Kelly is wrong, you should take that with a little pinch of salt. Even if he is a "professional gambler." |
|
By:
Hi you guys i know your going to hate me but this is all about VALUE 4.50 Stanley zip said Stanley was the value it won on the bridle zip laid the other 4 . value v opinions you tell me
|
|
By:
Not many value MEN will post on this thread .. if they do and there not talking bullshit zip will answer ,.
|