NO (nt)
I wonder how you can answer so fast that all this isn`t a typo error... since most of the informed players are aware that MIT was playing to a 0.4 Kelly.
You didn't ask me if it could have been a typo. You asked if they said .4 or 4X, and I said it was 4. I am not a mind reader and don't know if Kevin Lewis meant something other than what ended up in print. I don't know if he hit the wrong keystrokes. But what he wrote in the essay (page 256), and what was published in black and white in the book is very poor advice and not what you would expect from anyone knowledgeable about the game.
I just thought that you figured out I was meaning typo error.I guess this is what happened.
I certainly have no beef with the MIT team. I know they existed and were extremely successful. My critique comes in the book about them. The author either used bit players who were not key members of the team or got the information wrong or just plain fabricated it, because there are numerous holes in the story.
playing vs tourists. Teams win & split $, tourists lose. simple.
it is!
splitting results to reduce variance is not unethical. Team play in terms of signaling each other and betting big into each other to force the squares to lose money faster is very unethical and will get a player or players barred from a poker room if they are caught.
Collusion is one of the biggest threats to your bankroll (especially on-line where background chat programs allow information sharing in real time).
I wonder how you can answer so fast that all this isn`t a typo error... since most of the informed players are aware that MIT was playing to a 0.4 Kelly.
Do you have a source for this? Most teams use a kelly fraction-one-quarter, one-half or (for the aggressive) one-half. But 0.4 is a bit awkward.
If you mean they were playing something like that I agree. None of the MIT teams would be in business if they were betting 4x Kelly. But Lewis's essay makes no sense to me. My money is on competence error rather than typo. Many successful card counters have an appalling understanding of money management, especially when playing from an external replenishable bankroll.
Collusion is one of the biggest threats to your bankroll (especially on-line where background chat programs allow information sharing in real time).
The general advice is to leave a game with colluders. Its so widespread online this is not really practical. Personally, I have found colluders to be more profitable than the biggest of big fish, and constitutes most of my profit from online play. Collusion is usually fairly obvious, and once detected, effectively reveals the hands of the players. A game-theory strategy optimized for collusion can give you as much as a 25% edge.
I have not been able to find when it is being repeated, but if I do I will post that information.
Hey G Man, could it be that you actually know a major player from the MIT team? Imagine that. Nice to have met both of you at that promotion.
Math Boy
That's why I asked.
> Many successful card counters have an appalling understanding of
> money management, especially when playing from an external replenishable bankroll.
Is it possible to be a successful card counter without a decent understanding of money management?
If so, seems they wouldn't need an external replenishable bankroll, would they?
A few might be lucky, as oppossed to smart. But, many?
Is it possible to be a successful card counter without a decent understanding of money management?
If so, seems they wouldn't need an external replenishable bankroll, would they?
If you have someone to bail you out then it makes it a hell of a lot easier.
A few might be lucky, as oppossed to smart. But, many?
Look at pre-90's blackjack literature. You won't see the 1.3 kelly bet divisor mentioned in the texts. Even Thorp left it out. Many texts avoid the subject altogether. Until Snyder there was no means of assessing a game properly and adjusting your spread accordingly. Optimal bet spreads didn't arrive till the last few years.
Even now this information has not been widely disseminated. The vast majority of counters do not have anything like an adequate understanding of this subject. There are and were so many of them, that the "few" you refer to is actually quite a large body of players.
through their betting patterns. Saw lots of raise/fold at that table. Looked like a signal to me.
"A game-theory strategy optimized for collusion can give you as much as a 25% edge."
My "Blowing Smoke" Detector has indicated life-threatening levels of hot air.
Stop, Drop, and Roll.
> If you have someone to bail you out then it makes it a hell of a lot easier.
Agreed. But you said "successful" card counters. I would'nt classify someone as successful if they keep having to go to the well.
> Look at pre-90's blackjack literature. You won't see the 1.3 kelly bet divisor mentioned in the texts. Even Thorp left it out.
Again, agreed. But I thought we are talking about today.
I wasn't around to play BJ in those days. But I imagine that those who were, and were successful, had an inate grasp of money management. Also, my personal belief, is that the game was more easily beaten then -that money management did not play as important a role then as it must play now. Less pub, less heat, better rules, better pen, better spreads, all Griffin had were bad fax machines and radio phones.
Revere was a panzy! :)
Play me and tell me when you have the nuts. Thats mathematically equivalent to a player who stays in using best-hand collusion strategy, if you figure out whats going on (not difficult). See how fast I hoover up your money.
This is not new information. Its blindingly obvious.
