Anyone watch Card Sharks?

[ddubois]

They play old reruns of this game show from the 70s/80s on Game Show Network on cable. I rememebr enjoying this show when I was a kid. But It's much more interesting to watch now that I have some gambling background. In fact, the money phase reminds me of some stuff I read in TPFAP! - something about playing/passong on small +EV edges that risk your ability to participate in opportunities for larger +EV plays later. I'm not a game show afficiando, but this seems like a pretty good one.

PS: It's also intersting to see the risk aversion at work. I just saw a woman bet on the last card 2000 of her 2300 that the next card would be higher. When I was a kid, that probably seemed reasonable, but now I would never pass up a chance to get 6:1 on my money for that last 300!

[Homer]

PS: It's also intersting to see the risk aversion at work. I just saw a woman bet on the last card 2000 of her 2300 that the next card would be higher. When I was a kid, that probably seemed reasonable, but now I would never pass up a chance to get 6:1 on my money for that last 300!

Kelly Criterion says that for optimal bankroll growth you should bet an amount proportional to your advantage. Here, you're getting even money on a bet that you have a 6/7 (85.7%) chance of winning, so you should bet 85.7% of your 2300 bankroll, or $1971. So, $2000 seems about right.

That being said, I'm not sure how well this applies to something like Card Sharks, since at most you will only have a few opportunities to play the game.

-- Homer

[Senor Choppy]

She isn't concerned with protecting a bankroll, which is only a priority if you're concerned with making future +EV wagers. It isn't applicable at all to this type of game show.

She should've bet it all unless she needed that $300 to eat.

[mike l.]

lol this is funny you mention this cause i love game shows and have found myself screaming at the set during the bonus round of this show many times. what i love most is when they do something totally inconsistent like bet 1/3 their money when theyre a 7 to 1 fave and then bet like 4/5 their money when theyre a dog or something. and they dont pay attention to what cards have been shown either. counting cards can narrow the edge down precisely actually but they completely ignore when there has been a glut of low cards and they have to choose over/under w/ a 9 showing or something. anyway funny you brought this up.

[Kevin]

Love the show but it brings back too many bad memories of playing Acey Deucy and betting a 200+ pot with a 2 and getting a 2... goodbye $400.

I love the very slim microphone - but Bob Eubanks was not as good of a host as the dark haired guy.

Kevin

[youtalkfunny]

Funny, all you guys like the part where they turn the cards.

I much prefer the part where one contestant posts an over-under number, and the other picks a side.

HOST: We asked 100 prison inmates, "When you watch a cop show on tv, do you root for the bad guys?" How many said, "Yes, I root for the bad guys!"?

CONTESTANT A: Oh, I think that's going to be a low number, I'll say.....two!

HOST: Two! OK, B, do you think it's higher or lower than two?

CONTESTANT B: Well, since I'm the dumbest man alive, I'll say....LOWER than two!!



You thought you were yelling at YOUR tv?

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
She isn't concerned with protecting a bankroll, which is only a priority if you're concerned with making future +EV wagers. It isn't applicable at all to this type of game show.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you seen the show? It requires you make successive bets of an amount of your choice carrying over your bankroll from bet to bet. If you blow your load betting higher on a 6, you miss out on the opportunity to push later in the round when a 2 or A is out. Thus, this show definately contains a component of something akin to bankroll protection.

But not on the last card.

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
CONTESTANT B: Well, since I'm the dumbest man alive, I'll say....LOWER than two!!

[/ QUOTE ]

rofl. i haven't even seen this show and i laughed at that. wish i had this channel..