artilce i found if anyone is interested:http://therxforum.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=100090022&f=8183022525&m=281107131
That's terrible advice on money management.
It advocates flat betting at 2%, if you know you are hitting at 57.5%. Where as the ideal would be to risk about 11% per play (assuming 1 play at a time), with resizing after each play.
If you are sure of your advantage (god whispers in your ear, and tells you you'll hit 57.5% of your next 1000 plays), you're a fool if you don't exploit that, and risk amounts base on Kelly criterion.
It advocates flat betting at 2%, if you know you are hitting at 57.5%. Where as the ideal would be to risk about 11% per play (assuming 1 play at a time), with resizing after each play.
If you are sure of your advantage (god whispers in your ear, and tells you you'll hit 57.5% of your next 1000 plays), you're a fool if you don't exploit that, and risk amounts base on Kelly criterion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fezzik:
Sounds like JR MIller, master scamdicapper, at work.
If I hear "Kelly does not work" one more time, I'm going to lose it. And if I hear 1 more guy claim to be competent enough to win at 57%, but not competent enough to be able to estimate his edge, I'm going to lose it even more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
nice post
Sounds like JR MIller, master scamdicapper, at work.
If I hear "Kelly does not work" one more time, I'm going to lose it. And if I hear 1 more guy claim to be competent enough to win at 57%, but not competent enough to be able to estimate his edge, I'm going to lose it even more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
nice post
JR Miller is quite possibly the worst of the bunch IMO.
The reason is that the Johnny DeMarco's of the world as such obvious scammers that any prudent person could easily dismiss them.
JR is like the Wizard of Oz. Nice looking website. Lots of "real names" complimenting him on his expertise. Sounds like an expert.
But it is well known amongst the subscribers that he simply cannot pick winners. Even though he has no problem plowing away firing on all sports. He claims that based on his track record it is reasonable for him to hit "55-56%" ATS. Right. This guy gets WORKED playing at -110, and he claims he can win vs -120??
He has a shameless "track us" part of his website that shows how great he did in January 2002..........NOTHING more current. Except for a recent days tracking of about 4-10 days........that seems to very based on how he did 5-10 days ago.
His "quiz" on his website includes such ridiculous, ambiguous questions that an MIT PHD would miss half of them, yet he talks about why "his" answers are clearly right......for instance he talks about how only winners, not losers pay the vigorish.
The only question in my mind is not whether JR is competent (he isn't). It is whether this guy actually has the ego to believe that he is a gifted handicapper. Only he can answer that question.
Bottom line: stay away from this bozo.
The reason is that the Johnny DeMarco's of the world as such obvious scammers that any prudent person could easily dismiss them.
JR is like the Wizard of Oz. Nice looking website. Lots of "real names" complimenting him on his expertise. Sounds like an expert.
But it is well known amongst the subscribers that he simply cannot pick winners. Even though he has no problem plowing away firing on all sports. He claims that based on his track record it is reasonable for him to hit "55-56%" ATS. Right. This guy gets WORKED playing at -110, and he claims he can win vs -120??
He has a shameless "track us" part of his website that shows how great he did in January 2002..........NOTHING more current. Except for a recent days tracking of about 4-10 days........that seems to very based on how he did 5-10 days ago.
His "quiz" on his website includes such ridiculous, ambiguous questions that an MIT PHD would miss half of them, yet he talks about why "his" answers are clearly right......for instance he talks about how only winners, not losers pay the vigorish.
The only question in my mind is not whether JR is competent (he isn't). It is whether this guy actually has the ego to believe that he is a gifted handicapper. Only he can answer that question.
Bottom line: stay away from this bozo.
Thanks FEZZ........
REPEAT..........
WHY DO ALL OF YOU EVEN CARE TO READ ALL THIS MUSH THAT IS OUT THERE WHEN YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS HERE AT THE RX THAT HAVE DONE THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!!
Have personally made the majority of my income from gambling for the last 13 years, and been involved with it firsthand for 20+ years.
Not boosting, just letting you know that you may learn to become a bonafide winner if you hang out here at the RX and absorb as much as you can from the PROS.....which are more than you even realize here!!
REPEAT..........
WHY DO ALL OF YOU EVEN CARE TO READ ALL THIS MUSH THAT IS OUT THERE WHEN YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS HERE AT THE RX THAT HAVE DONE THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!!
Have personally made the majority of my income from gambling for the last 13 years, and been involved with it firsthand for 20+ years.
Not boosting, just letting you know that you may learn to become a bonafide winner if you hang out here at the RX and absorb as much as you can from the PROS.....which are more than you even realize here!!
Fishhead -
It doesn't matter if you lose 11 in a row (except emotionally). If I hit 115 out of 200 games, and I resize after each play, the order does not matter.
So in answer to your question... Risk of ruin is 0%.
You don't even have to be perfectly accurate in your estimated edge to utilize this, as long as you don't overestimate your edge. Often, I'll have a play that I think will hit between 57-61%. I don't have enough data to narrow it down with confidence. In that case, typically use 57 (with a 95% chance of underestimating my edge).
Compare two betters who hit 115/200. Your flat 2% better is up (115 - 85 *1.1), or 21.5 units, or $430 if he had a $1k bankroll.
Your second better "underbets" using 10%. After those 200 plays, his bankroll is now: 1k * (1.091) ^ 115 / (1.1) ^ 85, roughly 5800.
There are two problems with the "Kelly" approach. First, it takes a LOT more work to accurately estimate your advantage. Any educated chucklehead can hit a decent winning rate, but he doesn't know if it is 53, 55 or higher. Once he figures out how to accurately evaluate his hit rate, he finds easy ways to increase it. But most people don't have the time or knowledge to do this.
The second problem with Kelly is that if you succeed, you are quickly hitting scalability limits, and attracting countermeasures. Your imaginary bankroll of $10k could hit 60k in one year, and you are looking to make 6k wagers. Betting the amount you want gets harder and harder, especially in the smaller sports that are more susceptible to 57%+ plays.
It doesn't matter if you lose 11 in a row (except emotionally). If I hit 115 out of 200 games, and I resize after each play, the order does not matter.
So in answer to your question... Risk of ruin is 0%.
You don't even have to be perfectly accurate in your estimated edge to utilize this, as long as you don't overestimate your edge. Often, I'll have a play that I think will hit between 57-61%. I don't have enough data to narrow it down with confidence. In that case, typically use 57 (with a 95% chance of underestimating my edge).
Compare two betters who hit 115/200. Your flat 2% better is up (115 - 85 *1.1), or 21.5 units, or $430 if he had a $1k bankroll.
Your second better "underbets" using 10%. After those 200 plays, his bankroll is now: 1k * (1.091) ^ 115 / (1.1) ^ 85, roughly 5800.
There are two problems with the "Kelly" approach. First, it takes a LOT more work to accurately estimate your advantage. Any educated chucklehead can hit a decent winning rate, but he doesn't know if it is 53, 55 or higher. Once he figures out how to accurately evaluate his hit rate, he finds easy ways to increase it. But most people don't have the time or knowledge to do this.
The second problem with Kelly is that if you succeed, you are quickly hitting scalability limits, and attracting countermeasures. Your imaginary bankroll of $10k could hit 60k in one year, and you are looking to make 6k wagers. Betting the amount you want gets harder and harder, especially in the smaller sports that are more susceptible to 57%+ plays.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FISHHEAD:
Thanks FEZZ........
REPEAT..........
WHY DO ALL OF YOU EVEN CARE TO READ ALL THIS MUSH THAT IS OUT THERE WHEN YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS HERE AT THE RX THAT HAVE DONE THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!!
Have personally made the majority of my income from gambling for the last 13 years, and been involved with it firsthand for 20+ years.
Not boosting, just letting you know that you may learn to become a bonafide winner if you hang out here at the RX and absorb as much as you can from the PROS.....which are more than you even realize here!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
good post fish....we all live and learn....take the panam situation and need to be pointed in the right direction.....NOW where can one find all the info the pros leave here on games? FISH give us a pick..THANKS
Thanks FEZZ........
REPEAT..........
WHY DO ALL OF YOU EVEN CARE TO READ ALL THIS MUSH THAT IS OUT THERE WHEN YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL GAMBLERS HERE AT THE RX THAT HAVE DONE THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!!
Have personally made the majority of my income from gambling for the last 13 years, and been involved with it firsthand for 20+ years.
Not boosting, just letting you know that you may learn to become a bonafide winner if you hang out here at the RX and absorb as much as you can from the PROS.....which are more than you even realize here!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
good post fish....we all live and learn....take the panam situation and need to be pointed in the right direction.....NOW where can one find all the info the pros leave here on games? FISH give us a pick..THANKS
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
Moon, here is a read on it.
http://www.jimgeary.com/poker/letters/KELLY.HTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
THANKS General
Moon, here is a read on it.
http://www.jimgeary.com/poker/letters/KELLY.HTM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
THANKS General
Nice thread gentlemen & Fishhead.
If tracking my plays using data I will use incremental betting, but I do not recommend this to anyone who does not take the time to understand the edge you have in a particular play.
IE...
Orlando is 0-8 last 8 ATS according to my data. Instead of playing this for 2%, I may very well play it for 3%, but I know that Orlando is a weak team and my past data shows me that toward seasons end and during the playoff rush my data is weaker, thus I would not play Orlando tonight for more than 2%.
As well, my records only indicate that I have a small edge/chance on this play, hitting 53%.
If tracking my plays using data I will use incremental betting, but I do not recommend this to anyone who does not take the time to understand the edge you have in a particular play.
IE...
Orlando is 0-8 last 8 ATS according to my data. Instead of playing this for 2%, I may very well play it for 3%, but I know that Orlando is a weak team and my past data shows me that toward seasons end and during the playoff rush my data is weaker, thus I would not play Orlando tonight for more than 2%.
As well, my records only indicate that I have a small edge/chance on this play, hitting 53%.
