Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2005, 04:31 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Amount to bet - Game theory

Suppose there is a hand with a positive expected vaulue of 50%- eg, for every $10 bet, you are expected to come away with $15. This scenario is distributed such that there is a 1/6 chance that you will lose $5 and 5/6 chance that you will win $10. Your hand will always be called, and this situation is constatnly repeated. So the next hand you will be in exactly the same situation (this is a hypothetical game theory question, not neccecarily a straightforward poker question). Assuming you have finite funds ($100 for arguement's sake), how much money does the bayes nash equilibrium state that you should invest in the hand, as a proportion of your funds, considering that if you invest all of it there is a 1/6*1/6 likelihood of total loss and elimination. This would probably be best thought of in the context of a tournament.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-15-2005, 05:00 AM
danderso8 danderso8 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11
Default Re: Amount to bet - Game theory

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there is a hand with a positive expected vaulue of 50%- eg, for every $10 bet, you are expected to come away with $15. This scenario is distributed such that there is a 1/6 chance that you will lose $5 and 5/6 chance that you will win $10.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, your question is poorly formed, cause these two sentences contradict one another.

Second, I don't think we are interested in doing your homework for you.

--dan
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-15-2005, 05:21 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Amount to bet - Game theory

I'm sorry, that was a typo. I meant a 2/6 probability of a loss of $5 and 4/6 probability of a gain of $10. Second, this isn't homework. It directly correlates to poker and finance theory.
However, perhaps a better example of this situation would be the following: suppose you have $m and the minimum bet increment is $b, but you can bet up to 100% of your bankroll (m) if you want. If your probability of winning is p and the prize for winning is w (so ev of p(w), which is assumed to be >0, how much is correct, from a game theory standpoint, to bet over an infinite period of time assuming that when you go broke you cannot bet again. This is a math question, not a personal opinion question. Is there an equation for bankroll managment that satisfies this system?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.