Warrior1961
Legend
Bronze Level
Hi everyone.
While I am an absolute novice in poker, I am clear that, in addition to improving my game, I must manage my bankroll very well. Kelly's criterion is understood to be used in stock market investments and sports betting, although I have also seen something in roulette forums.
What do you think ? Is it applicable to poker?
Below is a letter from a mathematician poker player on the subject in question.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Best regards.
Bankroll: the refutation of the Kelly criterion
For those who are not familiar with Kelly's criteria, it basically indicates that the percentage of the bankroll that must be bet is a function of the value of the well and the probability of obtaining it (similar to the pot odds but more sophisticated criteria).
There are arguments that undermine the usefulness of this criterion for use in the management of banking in poker and that are based on the limitations exposed by the same designer, those contributed by other scholars and those that we can add (which, modestly, are the most relevant, by the way).
Kelly clarified that the results of his method will be valid, assuming certain conditions:
The probability of winning and the reward for each $ bet does not change in the different games in the series.
The result is verified as long as it is a succession of long-term games.
The first condition is the main reason why this method is not effective in poker. The odds of success and proportional rewards change in each round. In addition to this, Thomas Bakker tells us “… these calculations do not include the psychological aspects either and this formula will end up throwing bankrolls guys where any bad streak can make you lose half.
"Most people will be upset playing with such a high risk and exposing themselves to the big swings."
And describe other factors to consider:
- “Your advantage: if you have a negative winrate, there is no bankroll that reaches.
- “Comfort: how much can you endure losing in a day? 5% of the bankroll? The 10%?
- "Other income: if you lose everything, do you have another economic income to rebuild it?"
Therefore, he says, "there is no specific bankroll for anyone."
If a good player is applied, if he takes into account the recommendations and takes seriously the management of his bench, he will be able to ascend from the lowest to the highest limits in a short time. The others will need years and, in fact, perhaps, they will never succeed.
Being successful requires technical or strategic skills, insight, and good financial management. The bankroll is an "investment fund" and must be managed as such. In the stock market, most likely, we would buy stocks that offered good profits and when the risk of losses was controllable. We would not have more than the advisable thing in each opportunity, nor we would put all the capital in a single "bet" by more good or sure that it seems.
In poker it is the same.
José Litvak
While I am an absolute novice in poker, I am clear that, in addition to improving my game, I must manage my bankroll very well. Kelly's criterion is understood to be used in stock market investments and sports betting, although I have also seen something in roulette forums.
What do you think ? Is it applicable to poker?
Below is a letter from a mathematician poker player on the subject in question.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Best regards.
Bankroll: the refutation of the Kelly criterion
For those who are not familiar with Kelly's criteria, it basically indicates that the percentage of the bankroll that must be bet is a function of the value of the well and the probability of obtaining it (similar to the pot odds but more sophisticated criteria).
There are arguments that undermine the usefulness of this criterion for use in the management of banking in poker and that are based on the limitations exposed by the same designer, those contributed by other scholars and those that we can add (which, modestly, are the most relevant, by the way).
Kelly clarified that the results of his method will be valid, assuming certain conditions:
The probability of winning and the reward for each $ bet does not change in the different games in the series.
The result is verified as long as it is a succession of long-term games.
The first condition is the main reason why this method is not effective in poker. The odds of success and proportional rewards change in each round. In addition to this, Thomas Bakker tells us “… these calculations do not include the psychological aspects either and this formula will end up throwing bankrolls guys where any bad streak can make you lose half.
"Most people will be upset playing with such a high risk and exposing themselves to the big swings."
And describe other factors to consider:
- “Your advantage: if you have a negative winrate, there is no bankroll that reaches.
- “Comfort: how much can you endure losing in a day? 5% of the bankroll? The 10%?
- "Other income: if you lose everything, do you have another economic income to rebuild it?"
Therefore, he says, "there is no specific bankroll for anyone."
If a good player is applied, if he takes into account the recommendations and takes seriously the management of his bench, he will be able to ascend from the lowest to the highest limits in a short time. The others will need years and, in fact, perhaps, they will never succeed.
Being successful requires technical or strategic skills, insight, and good financial management. The bankroll is an "investment fund" and must be managed as such. In the stock market, most likely, we would buy stocks that offered good profits and when the risk of losses was controllable. We would not have more than the advisable thing in each opportunity, nor we would put all the capital in a single "bet" by more good or sure that it seems.
In poker it is the same.
José Litvak
