Mission146 is the second confirmed Village Idiot of this site

Some people are born stupid; these are unfortunate people.

Then you have some people who were not born stupid but do consistently stupid acts so they are village idiots in my book.

My response to Mission146: Mean-Variance & CE

Bird in hand is worth two in the bush as a general comment in the world of (Mean-Variance &) CE.

I don’t have time so I will give a quick and dirty answer.

I wasn’t there but I am assuming a 7/5 DDB triple play game in quarters. The flop was a dealt full house and paid 105 coins per line GUARANTEED if player kept dealt full house.

So UNLESS THE ALTERNATIVE CHOICE WAS WORTH 210 COINS PER LINE WITH RISK, you take the sure winner WITHOUT RISK, respectively (this is quick and dirty analysis)!!

I am too busy dealing with Mission146’s bullspit.

Mean variance (to look it up): https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m...e-analysis.asp

Certainty Equivalent (look it up as well): https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...equivalent.asp

Again, it 7 units guaranteed at 3X (if player kept the flop) so Mission146 can kindly go f*ck himself. It was 7 * 3 for 21 units for some dumbf*ck who was too stupid to get the units right.

I was so tired of his sh*t on WoV and now he is back to his bullspit on this site.

The real analysis is really complicated due to path dependency but there’s no way I am disclosing high level AP math. It involves 12X GUARANTEED on next consecutive wager ... again, think in terms of mean-variance & certainty equivalence.

Per CE, 12X GUARANTEED is worth roughly 24X with risk and do you think Mission146 the 2nd village idiot of this forums gets this simple point!

Let me just say this: When you have a bird in hand situation, mean-variance & CE answers are just as valid as EV-based answers.

It seems you have upgraded your position on Advantage Potato’s position to equally valid. Very good.

It seems you admit dropping the boat is the better EV choice, very good.

I think the one thing we can both agree on is that we would both need a very good reason to be playing that particular game at max bet in the first place. 7-5 straight up—-gross.

Honestly, you could save us both time, and me reading your threads for the inevitable mention of me, by just telling me what your problem with me is. If you’re holding back to spare my feelings, while I do appreciate the thought, it’s not necessary.

Seriously. I have no idea who you are, even on WoV, and I’d never heard of Advantage Potato until yesterday. I don’t follow the gambling Twitter too much.

CE varies wildly based on amount of capital available to my understanding than a straightforward 2:1 ratio, however, it’s related proportionately to the risk of ruin. Most AP’s that aren’t meth-head hustlers RoR is going probably going to be inconsequential on utx so much less gain than a 2:1 ratio. We get it though you’re nittier about variance than most, you’re “retired” and have said you won’t play certain games due to variance or pass on smaller edges.

Example being I just looked at a blackjack card counting simulation on cvcx with 0.0 RoR where edge is 1.25%, win rate per 100 hands is $191.46, CE is 149.27 or about 78% of EV. Doubling the bet amounts (same spread, edge, double EV) gives 1.1% RoR, $382.92 EV but $214.16 CE so CE dropped substantially from 78% to 56% (closer to your 2:1) by going from 0.0% RoR to 1.1%. Doubling it again the RoR rises substantially to 10.3%, and even though EV is now $765.84/100 and edge is the same the CE is $90.82, way lower than the original calculation that had only 1/4 the EV. Given that high multiple UTX plays are pretty high edge and inconsequential betting amounts to bankroll even with variance I would think most will be in that high CE range not equivalent to or 1.3:1 or less rather than 2:1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

CE varies wildly based on amount of capital available to my understanding than a straightforward 2:1 ratio, however, it’s related proportionately to the risk of ruin. Most AP’s that aren’t meth-head hustlers RoR is going probably going to be inconsequential on utx so much less gain than a 2:1 ratio. We get it though you’re nittier about variance than most, you’re “retired” and have said you won’t play certain games due to variance or pass on smaller edges.

Example being I just looked at a blackjack card counting simulation on cvcx with 0.0 RoR where edge is 1.25%, win rate per 100 hands is $191.46, CE is 149.27 or about 78% of EV. Doubling the bet amounts (same spread, edge, double EV) gives 1.1% RoR, $382.92 EV but $214.16 CE so CE dropped substantially from 78% to 56% (closer to your 2:1) by going from 0.0% RoR to 1.1%. Doubling it again the RoR rises substantially to 10.3%, and even though EV is now $765.84/100 and edge is the same the CE is $90.82, way lower than the original calculation that had only 1/4 the EV. Given that high multiple UTX plays are pretty high edge and inconsequential betting amounts to bankroll even with variance I would think most will be in that high CE range not equivalent to or 1.3:1 or less rather than 2:1.

---

Here is the question I had in graduate school: Suppose you had a choice of getting $1 million guaranteed or take a coin flip (fair coin) for $0 or $2,000,000, respectively.

There are many ways to answer this question of take the money or go for the toss.

This is graduate school so the focus is on theory. So in one example, we had the ability to buy “insurance”, e.g. give up some unit of our Wealth in the event we take the coin flip.

Btw, this was a question on my final and something I had to deal with on a constant basis in investment during my professional career. The correct answer depends on the individual’s wealth function, e.g. ln(W), the type of the function, etc. How much wealth must be given up as an insurance payment so the individual is indifferent to the two states. Clearly, it depends on the individual’s wealth and shape of the function. If your bank account is at $10,000 that extra $1,000,000 is going to give you a lot of marginal utility. Conversely if you have $50 million next worth, other things being equal, you might be more inclined to take the risk.

So one answer to solving CE is to look at the individual’s utility and solve for insurance payment so you would be indifferent to the coin toss.

Going back to this situation:
- Video Poker has much higher variance than blackjack as a general comment
- UX has a lot more variance than plain vanilla Video Poker
- This question is a lot more complex because it involves path dependency
- there are two guarantees in this problem so CE rears it head twice: 3X on dealt full house, which IF KEPT, creates 12X on the next wager

Based on my training and career experience, I would solve it based on the insurance approach. As a former Blackjack player myself in the old days, I would say using BJ would not be a good example to use as a corollary.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, Mission146 is a documented liar. He was obviously butthurt that I turned down his private offer to write a story about me. He is clearly trying to troll me with “own my ass” when he cannot get the units right.

In summary, unless you use Isoquants aka indifference curves, wealth functions, it’s really hard to speak to CE, optimization, etc. But, I will say you do see 2:1 ratio a lot in the finance literature back when I was in school. I gave links to finance (not blackjack) sites for a reason.

I wasn't butt hurt by you declining. I was, however, surprised...and keep in mind this is not knowing anything at all about you...that the answer wasn't simply, "No thank you," if you wanted to decline.

And, yeah, I shouldn't have responded to your reply...even though you insulted me in it. But, you know what, I'm a dick. You're not wrong to say I shouldn't have responded to that, though.

In any case, I'm interested in you either agreeing not to mention me in your threads, or us discussing what your problem with me is. If the former, and you keep your word, then I won't even so much as open another thread you create again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I wasn't butt hurt by you declining. I was, however, surprised...and keep in mind this is not knowing anything at all about you...that the answer wasn't simply, "No thank you," if you wanted to decline.

And, yeah, I shouldn't have responded to your reply...even though you insulted me in it. But, you know what, I'm a dick. You're not wrong to say I shouldn't have responded to that, though.

In any case, I'm interested in you either agreeing not to mention me in your threads, or us discussing what your problem with me is. If the former, and you keep your word, then I won't even so much as open another thread you create again.

---

Ex-Crement likes to start shit with people and then claim they initiated it. He's a pile of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Ex-Crement likes to start shit with people and then claim they initiated it. He's a pile of shit.

---

Tableplay, you are proven village idiot because the messages are time stamped.

I asked a simple question about FarmVille and you went into full Fascist wing mode. Keep lying because the time stamp doesn’t lie. You got caught starting shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

CE varies wildly based on amount of capital available to my understanding than a straightforward 2:1 ratio, however, it’s related proportionately to the risk of ruin. Most AP’s that aren’t meth-head hustlers RoR is going probably going to be inconsequential on utx so much less gain than a 2:1 ratio. We get it though you’re nittier about variance than most, you’re “retired” and have said you won’t play certain games due to variance or pass on smaller edges.

Example being I just looked at a blackjack card counting simulation on cvcx with 0.0 RoR where edge is 1.25%, win rate per 100 hands is $191.46, CE is 149.27 or about 78% of EV. Doubling the bet amounts (same spread, edge, double EV) gives 1.1% RoR, $382.92 EV but $214.16 CE so CE dropped substantially from 78% to 56% (closer to your 2:1) by going from 0.0% RoR to 1.1%. Doubling it again the RoR rises substantially to 10.3%, and even though EV is now $765.84/100 and edge is the same the CE is $90.82, way lower than the original calculation that had only 1/4 the EV. Given that high multiple UTX plays are pretty high edge and inconsequential betting amounts to bankroll even with variance I would think most will be in that high CE range not equivalent to or 1.3:1 or less rather than 2:1.

---

I am going use single video blackjack with decent rules (deck reshuffles after every hand) and the variance is roughly 1.4 units. Even though you are flat betting, the variance is greater than 1 due to splits and double double and maybe DAS.

In Video poker, the benchmark game is 9/6 JoB and the variance is 19.51 units mainly due to the Royal Flush at 800 for 1.

In the 7/5 DDB game, the variance is 42.17 units (due to fat quads and quads with kickers) which is more than twice the variance for 9/6 JoB.

In the 9/6 & 7/5 games, it assumes max EV strategy at 5 coins.

Now, in UX mode for 7/5, the particular hand in question has 12X assuming the player kept the pat full house. Therefore, variance for the next hand is 12 * 42.17 units (assuming 5 coin wager) is way more than the single deck VBJ variance of 1.4 units. Btw, the highest payoff is $36,000 (36 Royal Flushes) on a $3.75 wager so the variance is insanely large.

So your claim of 1.3 : 1.0 ratio would not be be an appropriate comparison due to the vast difference in variance at flat betting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Ex-Crement likes to start shit with people and then claim they initiated it. He's a pile of shit.

---

Tableplay, you are proven village idiot because the messages are time stamped.

I asked a simple question about FarmVille and you went into full Fascist wing mode. Keep lying because the time stamp doesn’t lie. You got caught starting shit.

---

Fuck off Kunt, I even linked your troll post which pre-dates this, which you ignore each time I post the link. Here is you're original troll post which pre-dates mine:
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post96067
Now what will happen is you will ignore that fact. Later you will say that I fired the first shot after I reply to one of your insults about me.

What's amazing is that Mission had to point out the simple math behind UX, since you don't know what the fuck you are talking about (the fact that you are discussing 10 coin shit says it all - you should not enter a UX play with anything but a 5 coin bet per hand). It's kind of like how you didn't even know that multi-hand video poker significantly reduces ROR for a given total betsize and bankroll versus one-hand play. Or you needed twitter to learn about Block Bonanza when most people knew it was a play as soon as it hit the floor several months ago. You left out some key points about that play which really show your ignorance (since these points don't appear on Twitter). Your ignorance about must hits, was on full display when Mickey asked you some his basic questions (after you insulted him) about when they are a play and you ignored them.

You must be off your meds because you've been pretty active of late. I remember you posting that you are retired, but here you are posting garbage about your casino trips where you attempt to vulture machines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

CE varies wildly based on amount of capital available to my understanding than a straightforward 2:1 ratio, however, it’s related proportionately to the risk of ruin. Most AP’s that aren’t meth-head hustlers RoR is going probably going to be inconsequential on utx so much less gain than a 2:1 ratio. We get it though you’re nittier about variance than most, you’re “retired” and have said you won’t play certain games due to variance or pass on smaller edges.

Example being I just looked at a blackjack card counting simulation on cvcx with 0.0 RoR where edge is 1.25%, win rate per 100 hands is $191.46, CE is 149.27 or about 78% of EV. Doubling the bet amounts (same spread, edge, double EV) gives 1.1% RoR, $382.92 EV but $214.16 CE so CE dropped substantially from 78% to 56% (closer to your 2:1) by going from 0.0% RoR to 1.1%. Doubling it again the RoR rises substantially to 10.3%, and even though EV is now $765.84/100 and edge is the same the CE is $90.82, way lower than the original calculation that had only 1/4 the EV. Given that high multiple UTX plays are pretty high edge and inconsequential betting amounts to bankroll even with variance I would think most will be in that high CE range not equivalent to or 1.3:1 or less rather than 2:1.

---

I am going use single video blackjack with decent rules (deck reshuffles after every hand) and the variance is roughly 1.4 units. Even though you are flat betting, the variance is greater than 1 due to splits and double double and maybe DAS.

In Video poker, the benchmark game is 9/6 JoB and the variance is 19.51 units mainly due to the Royal Flush at 800 for 1.

In the 7/5 DDB game, the variance is 42.17 units (due to fat quads and quads with kickers) which is more than twice the variance for 9/6 JoB.

In the 9/6 & 7/5 games, it assumes max EV strategy at 5 coins.

Now, in UX mode for 7/5, the particular hand in question has 12X assuming the player kept the pat full house. Therefore, variance for the next hand is 12 * 42.17 units (assuming 5 coin wager) is way more than the single deck VBJ variance of 1.4 units. Btw, the highest payoff is $36,000 (36 Royal Flushes) on a $3.75 wager so the variance is insanely large.

So your claim of 1.3 : 1.0 ratio would not be be an appropriate comparison due to the vast difference in variance at flat betting.

---

Yes higher variance but also much higher edge, so just comparing the variance without additional context isn’t that relevant either. Would be more relevant to compare it to something also high edge high variance. I thought perhaps the low edge would compensate for low variance in blackjack example, while UX much higher variance no one is playing it with a 0.5% edge. Ocean Magic is high variance and no one needs much bankroll for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

You must be off your meds because you've been pretty active of late. I remember you posting that you are retired, but here you are posting garbage about your casino trips where you attempt to vulture machines.

---

He can't deal with the current cost of Ribeye Steaks at his local Supermarket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

You must be off your meds because you've been pretty active of late. I remember you posting that you are retired, but here you are posting garbage about your casino trips where you attempt to vulture machines.

---

He can't deal with the current cost of Ribeye Steaks at his local Supermarket.

---

Yes exactly Monet. I imagine it creates about the same amount of emotion (without the lithium) as it would create in a person with a normal psychological profile, if they were being hung over a cliff by their ankles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Fuck off Kunt, I even linked your troll post which pre-dates this, which you ignore each time I post the link. Here is you're original troll post which pre-dates mine:
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post96067
Now what will happen is you will ignore that fact. Later you will say that I fired the first shot after I reply to one of your insults about me.

What's amazing is that Mission had to point out the simple math behind UX, since you don't know what the fuck you are talking about (the fact that you are discussing 10 coin shit says it all - you should not enter a UX play with anything but a 5 coin bet per hand). It's kind of like how you didn't even know that multi-hand video poker significantly reduces ROR for a given total betsize and bankroll versus one-hand play. Or you needed twitter to learn about Block Bonanza when most people knew it was a play as soon as it hit the floor several months ago. You left out some key points about that play which really show your ignorance (since these points don't appear on Twitter). Your ignorance about must hits, was on full display when Mickey asked you some his basic questions (after you insulted him) about when they are a play and you ignored them.

You must be off your meds because you've been pretty active of late. I remember you posting that you are retired, but here you are posting garbage about your casino trips where you attempt to vulture machines.

---

That was the post that PROVED you are a village idiot.

Higher IQ than you would ask: How do you know that was true.

Okay, you got butthurt because I challenged your VILLAGE IDIOT grade post. I’ll explain to the other readers so they learn **NOT** to post like an VILLAGE IDIOT.

The CONTEXT was a play-all machine in a LAND BASED and you couldn’t even follow the context of the discussion.

Try understanding CONTEXT in a conversation Mr. Tableplay, the first village idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

He can't deal with the current cost of Ribeye Steaks at his local Supermarket.

---

I am not paying for overpriced steak. Not my style. I am not ashamed of having financial discipline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

He can't deal with the current cost of Ribeye Steaks at his local Supermarket.

---

I am not paying for overpriced steak. Not my style. I am not ashamed of having financial discipline.

---

If you think it's overpriced now. You haven't seen anything yet....lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Yes higher variance but also much higher edge, so just comparing the variance without additional context isn’t that relevant either. Would be more relevant to compare it to something also high edge high variance. I thought perhaps the low edge would compensate for low variance in blackjack example, while UX much higher variance no one is playing it with a 0.5% edge. Ocean Magic is high variance and no one needs much bankroll for that.

---

See this post https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...xpected-Profit

MathProf (when I was on bj21.com) was an actual Math Professor based out of Detroit. Kim Lee teaches Finance for graduate business students and is an expert on options. I should have made that post here rather than start a new thread.

The article on bj21.com by is a bear to read but at least it gives solid math behind what I been saying.

“ CE(t) = exp{1/2*k*S^2*t}, (1)

...

E[C(t)] = exp{k*S^2*t}. (3)

As has been pointed out by MathProf, the CE profit is approximately half of the expected profit. One can see that the exponent in formula (3) is twice as high compared to formula (1). It can be proven that CE profit is half of the expected profit if the edge (and thus Sharpe ratio S) or time t converge to zero. In other words, for an optimally and continuously betting investor the "instantaneous" CE profit is half of the instantaneous expected profit. “

So that pretty much supports my understanding of CE and the context of 2.0 : 1.0 ratio.

A lot of AP’s don’t understand when you have a bird in hand situation, you can mean-variance rather than an EV-based solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex-AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

Fuck off Kunt, I even linked your troll post which pre-dates this, which you ignore each time I post the link. Here is you're original troll post which pre-dates mine:
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post96067
Now what will happen is you will ignore that fact. Later you will say that I fired the first shot after I reply to one of your insults about me.

What's amazing is that Mission had to point out the simple math behind UX, since you don't know what the fuck you are talking about (the fact that you are discussing 10 coin shit says it all - you should not enter a UX play with anything but a 5 coin bet per hand). It's kind of like how you didn't even know that multi-hand video poker significantly reduces ROR for a given total betsize and bankroll versus one-hand play. Or you needed twitter to learn about Block Bonanza when most people knew it was a play as soon as it hit the floor several months ago. You left out some key points about that play which really show your ignorance (since these points don't appear on Twitter). Your ignorance about must hits, was on full display when Mickey asked you some his basic questions (after you insulted him) about when they are a play and you ignored them.

You must be off your meds because you've been pretty active of late. I remember you posting that you are retired, but here you are posting garbage about your casino trips where you attempt to vulture machines.

---

That was the post that PROVED you are a village idiot.

Higher IQ than you would ask: How do you know that was true.

Okay, you got butthurt because I challenged your VILLAGE IDIOT grade post. I’ll explain to the other readers so they learn **NOT** to post like an VILLAGE IDIOT.

The CONTEXT was a play-all machine in a LAND BASED and you couldn’t even follow the context of the discussion.

Try understanding CONTEXT in a conversation Mr. Tableplay, the first village idiot.

---

More gobbledygook from the king of morons.