True ROI of Top Players at the WSOP This year

[skolsuper]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

[pokerfan]

Better off backing 1.01 shots on Betfair.

[The Camel]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

What % of your bankroll would you stake on heads on tails if someone gave you 2/1 about predicting the correct answer?

(Obviously you know for sure it's 100% you aren't going to be cheated)

The last time I was at the Aussie Millions Roland offered m 5/4 red or black on the next flop.. What should I have bet?

[Doobs]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

... and risk premium in old school theory.

Buying costs should be deducted from any expected return, so that means the expected exchange costs from live poker clearly be in too.  This isn't the exchange rate movement which is a different thing.

..and grim risk should be factored in for some people.  If often somebody pays slowly, it would be reasonable to deduct for that too.

It is interesting Dan mentioned share traders, a lot of share traders wouldn't have a clue on the theory, they just "know" when to trade.  I expect Camel doesn't know the theory behind the price he quotes, just instinctively has a rough idea where it should be through experience.

Will give a better answer tomorrow.  Am up early in the morning.

 

[skolsuper]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

What % of your bankroll would you stake on heads on tails if someone gave you 2/1 about predicting the correct answer?

(Obviously you know for sure it's 100% you aren't going to be cheated)

The last time I was at the Aussie Millions Roland offered m 5/4 red or black on the next flop.. What should I have bet?

There is a definitive answer to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

[The Camel]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

What % of your bankroll would you stake on heads on tails if someone gave you 2/1 about predicting the correct answer?

(Obviously you know for sure it's 100% you aren't going to be cheated)

The last time I was at the Aussie Millions Roland offered m 5/4 red or black on the next flop.. What should I have bet?

There is a definitive answer to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

That's good stuff.

I asked Tony Bloom the 2/1 coin flip question and his answer was 1% of his money.

Obviously the richer you are the less the utility of winning 2x your stake.

For Bill Gates the answer would probably be 0.

[skolsuper]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

What % of your bankroll would you stake on heads on tails if someone gave you 2/1 about predicting the correct answer?

(Obviously you know for sure it's 100% you aren't going to be cheated)

The last time I was at the Aussie Millions Roland offered m 5/4 red or black on the next flop.. What should I have bet?

There is a definitive answer to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

That's good stuff.

I asked Tony Bloom the 2/1 coin flip question and his answer was 1% of his money.

Obviously the richer you are the less the utility of winning 2x your stake.

For Bill Gates the answer would probably be 0.

Yeah the mathematically correct answer (Kelly) is most likely way over what people would actually be prepared to gamble, it's sick variance. Making Kelly sized bets, you lose half your bankroll 50% of the time, so 7/8ths of your bankroll 1/8th of the time and so on, which most sensible people don't want to go through. Also, whilst underbetting kelly only has a small opportunity cost (making slightly less money than you could have on profitable bets), overbetting it leads to "gambler's ruin" and is a disaster in terms of long term expectation, so it's best to err on the side of caution. I had a friend at betfair that used Kelly/20, but he said Kelly/10 was more standard.

[Rupert]

Not interested in 1.5 100% at 1.49. I think what David is trying to get at is some point where players ROI = backers ROI so markup should be sqrt(ROI) so for 50% ROI 1.5^0.5=1.22 would be a "fair" markup. My A level maths escapes me but I think variance would still be higher for the backer here. You can use a diminishing utility function within Kelly if you cared etc.

[redarmi]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

What % of your bankroll would you stake on heads on tails if someone gave you 2/1 about predicting the correct answer?

(Obviously you know for sure it's 100% you aren't going to be cheated)

The last time I was at the Aussie Millions Roland offered m 5/4 red or black on the next flop.. What should I have bet?

There is a definitive answer to this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

That's good stuff.

I asked Tony Bloom the 2/1 coin flip question and his answer was 1% of his money.

Obviously the richer you are the less the utility of winning 2x your stake.

For Bill Gates the answer would probably be 0.

Yeah the mathematically correct answer (Kelly) is most likely way over what people would actually be prepared to gamble, it's sick variance. Making Kelly sized bets, you lose half your bankroll 50% of the time, so 7/8ths of your bankroll 1/8th of the time and so on, which most sensible people don't want to go through. Also, whilst underbetting kelly only has a small opportunity cost (making slightly less money than you could have on profitable bets), overbetting it leads to "gambler's ruin" and is a disaster in terms of long term expectation, so it's best to err on the side of caution. I had a friend at betfair that used Kelly/20, but he said Kelly/10 was more standard.

Good post.  Kelly suggests in Keiths example you should bet 25% of your bankroll which may be mathematically optimal but it is most certainly not life optimal.  I have used between half and a fifth of kelly based on my confidence in certain bets, stakes etc and have been broke a few times.  I would guess something like a fifth Kelly is workable but if I had a very big roll it would be less for sure.

[DMorgan]

Dan needs to look up "Cost of Capital". Only a person with effectively infinite money could rationally pay 1.49 for a <1% ROI with the variance of tournament poker.

That lecture must have been on a friday of a deepstack weekend

[SuuPRlim]

I have a formula for staking, for selection of who to stake and how much to wager.

It's a sliding points system, derived from the following criteria.

1) How much do I like the person, out of 100

2) How much do I feel like he's "due" out of 100

3) How high has his morale been lately out of 100

4) Value at the price, out of 100

Anything above 325/400 is an auto buy for me. 250-325 very likely buying, if anyone has a particulally high 1) score Im often going to just buy anyways

How much to stake

1) How am I running recently - if it's 0-30 out of 100 = 3 points, 30-60 = 2 points, 60-80 = 1 point, 80-100 = 4 points

2) How Degen do I feel - 0-40 = 1 point, 40-60 = 2 points, 60-90 = 4 points, 90-100 = 7 points

3) Has the guy ever won before when I wanted to buy a piece but didn't, yes = 2 points, no = 0 points.

9-13 points = buy 3x what I can afford, 7-8 buy bigger than i should, 5 and below buy what I can afford, or maybe be a little nitty.

Pretty big loser buying pieces in tourneys lifetime, but I always get a good go for my money 

[DMorgan]

bookmarked

such a hero

[smashedagain]

I have a formula for staking, for selection of who to stake and how much to wager.

It's a sliding points system, derived from the following criteria.

1) How much do I like the person, out of 100

2) How much do I feel like he's "due" out of 100

3) How high has his morale been lately out of 100

4) Value at the price, out of 100

Anything above 325/400 is an auto buy for me. 250-325 very likely buying, if anyone has a particulally high 1) score Im often going to just buy anyways

How much to stake

1) How am I running recently - if it's 0-30 out of 100 = 3 points, 30-60 = 2 points, 60-80 = 1 point, 80-100 = 4 points

2) How Degen do I feel - 0-40 = 1 point, 40-60 = 2 points, 60-90 = 4 points, 90-100 = 7 points

3) Has the guy ever won before when I wanted to buy a piece but didn't, yes = 2 points, no = 0 points.

9-13 points = buy 3x what I can afford, 7-8 buy bigger than i should, 5 and below buy what I can afford, or maybe be a little nitty.

Pretty big loser buying pieces in tourneys lifetime, but I always get a good go for my money 

and I thought it was a waste of time getting you to put me in the one drop. I just scored massive here

[SuuPRlim]

I have a formula for staking, for selection of who to stake and how much to wager.

It's a sliding points system, derived from the following criteria.

1) How much do I like the person, out of 100

2) How much do I feel like he's "due" out of 100

3) How high has his morale been lately out of 100

4) Value at the price, out of 100

Anything above 325/400 is an auto buy for me. 250-325 very likely buying, if anyone has a particulally high 1) score Im often going to just buy anyways

How much to stake

1) How am I running recently - if it's 0-30 out of 100 = 3 points, 30-60 = 2 points, 60-80 = 1 point, 80-100 = 4 points

2) How Degen do I feel - 0-40 = 1 point, 40-60 = 2 points, 60-90 = 4 points, 90-100 = 7 points

3) Has the guy ever won before when I wanted to buy a piece but didn't, yes = 2 points, no = 0 points.

9-13 points = buy 3x what I can afford, 7-8 buy bigger than i should, 5 and below buy what I can afford, or maybe be a little nitty.

Pretty big loser buying pieces in tourneys lifetime, but I always get a good go for my money 

and I thought it was a waste of time getting you to put me in the one drop. I just scored massive here

I would defo stake you in something as you literally smash every criteria + ive been losing lately and what a hilarious way to get out of it just sticking herbie in a live comp and collllleccccttttiiinnnnnnnng oioiiii

[smashedagain]

I have a formula for staking, for selection of who to stake and how much to wager.

It's a sliding points system, derived from the following criteria.

1) How much do I like the person, out of 100

2) How much do I feel like he's "due" out of 100

3) How high has his morale been lately out of 100

4) Value at the price, out of 100

Anything above 325/400 is an auto buy for me. 250-325 very likely buying, if anyone has a particulally high 1) score Im often going to just buy anyways

How much to stake

1) How am I running recently - if it's 0-30 out of 100 = 3 points, 30-60 = 2 points, 60-80 = 1 point, 80-100 = 4 points

2) How Degen do I feel - 0-40 = 1 point, 40-60 = 2 points, 60-90 = 4 points, 90-100 = 7 points

3) Has the guy ever won before when I wanted to buy a piece but didn't, yes = 2 points, no = 0 points.

9-13 points = buy 3x what I can afford, 7-8 buy bigger than i should, 5 and below buy what I can afford, or maybe be a little nitty.

Pretty big loser buying pieces in tourneys lifetime, but I always get a good go for my money 

and I thought it was a waste of time getting you to put me in the one drop. I just scored massive here

I would defo stake you in something as you literally smash every criteria + ive been losing lately and what a hilarious way to get out of it just sticking herbie in a live comp and collllleccccttttiiinnnnnnnng oioiiii

Lol Ty for the vote of confidence.