| Пополняемый банк ID:7447 ответ на 6728 |
Сб, 23 июня 2007 18:49 [#] |
|
|
Интересная дискуссия произошла недавно на advantageplayer.com.На вопросы одного из постеров отвечает Дон Шлезингер.Вот текст.Я его перевел с помощью Промта и понял для себя суть,но просьба к участникам форума- переведите пожалуйста кто нибудь качественно и выложите на форуме для всеобщего просвещения.
> Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I am not
> infinitely wealthy 
Don- :"But, you're working on it! :-)"
> However, my bankroll is easily
> replenished (due to, heaven forbid, a non-blackjack
> career), and is not the limiting factor in deciding
> how much I bet.
Don- :"I've been like that for ages."
> My current betting strategy is to pick a somewhat
> arbitrary unit size and spread with which I and the
> casinos are comfortable, then use BJA3 or CVCX to
> determine an optimal betting ramp.
Don- :"Perfectly normal."
> It dawned on me,
> however, that since all of this is predicated on
> maximizing the log of wealth given a limited bankroll,
> with associated concerns of ROR, I may not be betting
> what is truly optimal.
Don- :"Right. To bet "optimally," it has to be "optimally" with respect to a specified bank size. Just doesn't make sense otherwise. As we'll get to in a moment, if the bank is "infinite," then a) "optimal" doesn't make much sense, and b) what do you need blackjack for in the first place? "
> My ROR is very close to zero,
> no matter what unit size I choose (within reason).
Don- :"Lucky you! :-)"
> If one's bankroll is easily replenished, what is the
> best way to bet?
Don- :"All you can afford, and all you can get away with -- the latter being at least as problematic as the former, and probably much more so! "
> Is the strategy of betting a large
> amount whenever one has an advantage, however small,
> non-optimal in this case?
Don- :"No, it's fine, so long as you're OK with (relatively) huge variance, which will plague you all your living days!  "
> Within reason, ROR=0
> whatever the bet size, so why not bet a large amount
> in all favorable situations?
Don- :"Indeed, why not?"
> Granted, I probably won't
> follow this strategy, regardless of whether it's
> mathematically sound,
Don- :"Coward! :-)"
> but I'm wondering whether my
> current "optimal" betting method has only a
> psychological basis.
Don- :"Yes. For the record, I agree with all that you have written."
|
|
|