EV per hour
- Thread starter 1357111317
- Start date
with 100 units, maybe dont play anything less than +1 if table conditions allow. you'll take a hit in hourly EV in terms of units but might be able to make up for it by using a slightly bigger betting unit while reducing ROR on a 100 unit BR. additionally, that 1-4 spread will then be all the more powerful. should not waste your time playing all with only a 1-4 spread probably.
You will win around 0.3 units per hour. That’s $3/hour if your betting unit is $10. With a 100-unit bankroll you have a RoR of around 89%. That's only a 1-in-10 chance of not going broke. If you only play positive counts then your win rate goes up to about 0.7 units per hour with a RoR of around 26%.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
The RoR is the chance of going broke. You can take 1-RoR to get the chance of not going broke. The numbers above are from CVCX Online so the results might be slightly different than your results (although it shouldn't be by much). If you are Wonging in at +2 (which you might be) then your results will be much different. In that case my spreadsheet gives an EV of 0.83 units per hour with a RoR of 35.47%, but that's for a generic 6D game with surrender. A game without surrender will have a lower EV and higher SD hence a higher RoR.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
Last edited:
I hate betting other people's money but I'd stick with the above advice. The key is if you are allowed MSE or not.
If it is allowed maybe even consider a 1-3 spread, 1 unit at 2&3, 1.5 units at 4, 2 at 5&6, and 3 at >6.
Maybe you make .5 units for every 100 hands seen but at least ROR is semi-reasonable. 13% or so maybe?
The good news is you wouldn't be playing very many physical hands an hour, you'd be counting your as* off, and hopefully having fun with the chance to re-adjust every so often.
I'm kinda assuming maybe u got $1K with a $10 min.
If it is allowed maybe even consider a 1-3 spread, 1 unit at 2&3, 1.5 units at 4, 2 at 5&6, and 3 at >6.
Maybe you make .5 units for every 100 hands seen but at least ROR is semi-reasonable. 13% or so maybe?
The good news is you wouldn't be playing very many physical hands an hour, you'd be counting your as* off, and hopefully having fun with the chance to re-adjust every so often.
I'm kinda assuming maybe u got $1K with a $10 min.
Right. I used the standard non-replenishable RoR formula. A 1-4 spread is almost useless for a play-all shoe game and 100 units is not nearly enough bankroll. You might be able to get away with a 1-4 spread if you’re wonging, but for play-all you should try to get at least a 1-12 spread or more. Usually a 600- or 800-unit bankroll will give you a small-ish RoR for that style of play.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
Like Sonny said, pretty much always I think that is the assumption.
Also like he said, the risk depends, even with the same 1-4 spread, same game, same $roll, same everything, how much you bet and when. You could bet your money with a 90% ROR or a 26% ROR. Up to you.
But, if you are willing to take a 90% ROR betting $10-$40 with a $1K roll, while you may have a 26% ROR betting $10-$40 playing only + counts, why not bet $20-$80 with the same $1K in only + counts (numbers made up to illustrate the point lol) so you have the same 90% ROR you apparently were willing to play with in the first place?
Conversely, if you like the 26% ROR and still want to play-all, and have the same $1K roll, well, if the table min is $10, it's just not possible, is it?
The point is one can manipulate one's ROR with the same $roll. Like, maybe you even spread 1-3, $10-$30, with the same $1K and only play TC's of +2 or more and only have a 13%ish ROR.
ROR sort of depends on the EV per round vs the risk (variance or SD) per round. When that ratio is optimal, you have Kelly.
Hopefully, you get the general idea
The good news is, the flip-side is, even with a 90% ROR, you still have a 1 in 10 chance of turning your 100 unit roll into 50,000 units, your $1k into $500K
Also like he said, the risk depends, even with the same 1-4 spread, same game, same $roll, same everything, how much you bet and when. You could bet your money with a 90% ROR or a 26% ROR. Up to you.
But, if you are willing to take a 90% ROR betting $10-$40 with a $1K roll, while you may have a 26% ROR betting $10-$40 playing only + counts, why not bet $20-$80 with the same $1K in only + counts (numbers made up to illustrate the point lol) so you have the same 90% ROR you apparently were willing to play with in the first place?
Conversely, if you like the 26% ROR and still want to play-all, and have the same $1K roll, well, if the table min is $10, it's just not possible, is it?
The point is one can manipulate one's ROR with the same $roll. Like, maybe you even spread 1-3, $10-$30, with the same $1K and only play TC's of +2 or more and only have a 13%ish ROR.
ROR sort of depends on the EV per round vs the risk (variance or SD) per round. When that ratio is optimal, you have Kelly.
Hopefully, you get the general idea
The good news is, the flip-side is, even with a 90% ROR, you still have a 1 in 10 chance of turning your 100 unit roll into 50,000 units, your $1k into $500K
As I thought - or to put it another way, playing ad-infinitum under those conditions there's a 90% chance you'll be down more than 100 units at some point.
The reason I ask is that most RoR calcs are based on the premise that players have a non-replenishable bankroll. For us poor, hardworking wage slaves who play recreationally the amount of money to devote to the game is, however, more likely to be the other way? - replenishable. If it goes, it goes, and if that happens we go away have a cry, save up some and then try again.
I read a posting (somewhere here at BJinfo.com) discussing sessional funding. One poster said they always took 40 units, and played until they lost it, doubled their money or an hour was up - whichever came first. Based on my own rough calcs for the ENHC game, 100 hands (an hour and a half at a crowded table?) 3 Std Devs each side of the line equates to 46 units, so this approach would seem reasonable for a recreational player?
Newb99
The reason I ask is that most RoR calcs are based on the premise that players have a non-replenishable bankroll. For us poor, hardworking wage slaves who play recreationally the amount of money to devote to the game is, however, more likely to be the other way? - replenishable. If it goes, it goes, and if that happens we go away have a cry, save up some and then try again.
I read a posting (somewhere here at BJinfo.com) discussing sessional funding. One poster said they always took 40 units, and played until they lost it, doubled their money or an hour was up - whichever came first. Based on my own rough calcs for the ENHC game, 100 hands (an hour and a half at a crowded table?) 3 Std Devs each side of the line equates to 46 units, so this approach would seem reasonable for a recreational player?
Newb99
Well I have a question. What is the EV and money made per hour at 100 hands per hour for these two games.
Betting all in true counts
>0 - 1u
+1 - 2u
+2 - 3u
+3 or greater - 4u
The DD games is about 70% pen, sometimes as high as 90%
Stand on soft 17, Double after splits, double any 2 cards, split up to 4 hands, split Aces once with one card, No surrender, blackjack pays 2/3. This comes out to about a .17 advandage for the casino. This is a $5 game
The SD games is about 65% pen.
No double after splits, stand on soft 17, double 10 and 11 only, split up to 4 hands, split aces once with one card, no surrender, blackjack pays 2/3. I cant remember the exact percentage, but it comes out to be aout -.38. I did run a program on this game and it turns out to be a winner using the sweet 16 straight betting, but I am not sure I was using the program properly. This is a $10 game.
Betting all in true counts
>0 - 1u
+1 - 2u
+2 - 3u
+3 or greater - 4u
The DD games is about 70% pen, sometimes as high as 90%
Stand on soft 17, Double after splits, double any 2 cards, split up to 4 hands, split Aces once with one card, No surrender, blackjack pays 2/3. This comes out to about a .17 advandage for the casino. This is a $5 game
The SD games is about 65% pen.
No double after splits, stand on soft 17, double 10 and 11 only, split up to 4 hands, split aces once with one card, no surrender, blackjack pays 2/3. I cant remember the exact percentage, but it comes out to be aout -.38. I did run a program on this game and it turns out to be a winner using the sweet 16 straight betting, but I am not sure I was using the program properly. This is a $10 game.
Actually it's more like you'll be down at least 100 units at some point at which time you are broke. But had you had 110 units, sometimes you'd be down more than 100 units at some point but still have a chance to recover to only 100 units down. Chances of finishing 100 units down over x hands is not the same as being down by at least 100 units at some point during those x hands. Small point maybe lol. Maybe no point at all lol.
I don't know - like you say there are all kinds of ROR calcs. Session ones, trip ones, lifetime ones, etc. Like, in your example, I guess your 40 units are min units with a max playing time of 100 hands while betting to your total 100 unit roll for that 100 hands? Chances are maybe pretty good you will neither double those 40 units or lose them all most of the time in at most 100 hands of play?
As far as 3 SD equalling 46 min? units over 100 hands of play, so what if it may possibly seem on the low side to me lol. If that's what your own rough calcs say, I have no idea what game you are playing, spreading to what or when or what your calcs are based on, etc, so be it.
Even if your replenishable roll as a recreational, apparently a recreational counting player, just at least consider investing a portion of one of those replenisahble rolls (maybe $1K?- is that what you are assuming?), in a sim. Then, maybe the good news is, at least there's alot less guessing about losing how much over how long etc.
I don't know - like you say there are all kinds of ROR calcs. Session ones, trip ones, lifetime ones, etc. Like, in your example, I guess your 40 units are min units with a max playing time of 100 hands while betting to your total 100 unit roll for that 100 hands? Chances are maybe pretty good you will neither double those 40 units or lose them all most of the time in at most 100 hands of play?
As far as 3 SD equalling 46 min? units over 100 hands of play, so what if it may possibly seem on the low side to me lol. If that's what your own rough calcs say, I have no idea what game you are playing, spreading to what or when or what your calcs are based on, etc, so be it.
Even if your replenishable roll as a recreational, apparently a recreational counting player, just at least consider investing a portion of one of those replenisahble rolls (maybe $1K?- is that what you are assuming?), in a sim. Then, maybe the good news is, at least there's alot less guessing about losing how much over how long etc.
What program was that? Could be though. Index play is most worthwhile in SD games, I think lol.
Everyone, not just you, always wanting to know EV it seems, how much can I win lol.
Never, apparently, even a thought as to the risk associated with that lol.
Either way, if you need re-assurance whether you may be using the results of a sim program properly or not, I'm more than willing, and I'm sure others will be too, to try to help.
Everyone, not just you, always wanting to know EV it seems, how much can I win lol.
Never, apparently, even a thought as to the risk associated with that lol.
Either way, if you need re-assurance whether you may be using the results of a sim program properly or not, I'm more than willing, and I'm sure others will be too, to try to help.
My calcs are for a six deck game, play all approach with a 1-8 spread. I've used one of Mr Snyder's tables from Blackbelt in Blackjack (%ages of hands at a given favourable and house edge) as the basis for them. The spreadsheet's nothing fancy, and calcs the wins/losses at each count/edge, based on an entered spread, and tallys the lot up to give a bottom line expected win/loss for "x" number of hands played. It doesn't take into account the effect of pushes (7% of all hands played across all counts? - I might build that in a bit later), and the Std Dev calc is one that is programmed into Excel for calculating it on a single figure (STDEVPA)
So it certainly isn't pin-point accurate, but I'm not sure it needs to be at my level of play. My results do fall into line with what others post and they do provide an instant indication of what is the maximum expected loss for any given amount of play - handy for knowing how much I need to take to the House of Chance so as not to blow out.
If I was playing several times a week with a decent amount behind me I would want something more robust and would invest in a decent sim program. But for the time being Excel, combined with an understanding of the underlying numbers gleaned over the last 8 months or so, suffices.
Newb99
So it certainly isn't pin-point accurate, but I'm not sure it needs to be at my level of play. My results do fall into line with what others post and they do provide an instant indication of what is the maximum expected loss for any given amount of play - handy for knowing how much I need to take to the House of Chance so as not to blow out.
If I was playing several times a week with a decent amount behind me I would want something more robust and would invest in a decent sim program. But for the time being Excel, combined with an understanding of the underlying numbers gleaned over the last 8 months or so, suffices.
Newb99
CVData and yes I will definately send you a message about question I might have on the program - the winning per 100 hands was about 60 cents though.
Risk is not as much a factor to me. I take about $500 a week to play. If i lose I go home and bring another $500 the next week and so forth, So the risk is not as much a factor for me. I have gone through one pretty bad swing for me anyways. I lost about $1200 over about 5 sessions but I am now up $600. I have not been playing long and I only spread 1 to 4 units.
Risk is not as much a factor to me. I take about $500 a week to play. If i lose I go home and bring another $500 the next week and so forth, So the risk is not as much a factor for me. I have gone through one pretty bad swing for me anyways. I lost about $1200 over about 5 sessions but I am now up $600. I have not been playing long and I only spread 1 to 4 units.
Last edited:
Hourly Expectation
HiLo with the Illustrious 18
4-1 betting spread
6 deck 83% pen Hit on soft 17 Double after split and split after split 3:2 blackjack.
FIRSTLY, a correction. The Risk of Ruin is your chance of going broke BEFORE you double your bankroll.
If your goal is to triple or quadruple your bankroll the RISK is way way higher !
Now, back to your posted question:
Your expectation (according to page #232 of Blackjack Attack 3rd ed.) can be expressed as follows:
Score =15.64 [with a spread of 8-1]
(note: 8-1 is the minimum spread if you are looking to earn anything; ergo published figures for 4-1 are not sought by anyone)
A SCORE of 15.64 is very poor. It means that with a $10,000 bankroll and "perfect" play and betting "optimally" you will earn $15.64 per hour on average. Your swings (standard deviation will be over 20 units per hour, (meaning that losing several hundred units in a day's play will not be very remarkable.)
If your bankroll is $2,500 you can expect an average profit of a whopping $3.91 -- far less than minimum wage - if you spread 8-1, not 4-1, and play flawlessly. Obviously spreading 4-1 will yield substantially LESS profits. I suggest that it is a BREAK-EVEN game. If it is minus nineteen cents an hour or pus a buck an hour is thoroughly moot. Y M M V but it certainly will be worse.
Playing this game with a 1-4 spread is good enough if you wish to "play for comps" - with no expectation of profits. Playing with low risk in an attempt to earn comps - without regard to the fact that you are putting your bankroll "at risk" for the dubious value of the comps.
HiLo with the Illustrious 18
4-1 betting spread
6 deck 83% pen Hit on soft 17 Double after split and split after split 3:2 blackjack.
FIRSTLY, a correction. The Risk of Ruin is your chance of going broke BEFORE you double your bankroll.
If your goal is to triple or quadruple your bankroll the RISK is way way higher !
Now, back to your posted question:
Your expectation (according to page #232 of Blackjack Attack 3rd ed.) can be expressed as follows:
Score =15.64 [with a spread of 8-1]
(note: 8-1 is the minimum spread if you are looking to earn anything; ergo published figures for 4-1 are not sought by anyone)
A SCORE of 15.64 is very poor. It means that with a $10,000 bankroll and "perfect" play and betting "optimally" you will earn $15.64 per hour on average. Your swings (standard deviation will be over 20 units per hour, (meaning that losing several hundred units in a day's play will not be very remarkable.)
If your bankroll is $2,500 you can expect an average profit of a whopping $3.91 -- far less than minimum wage - if you spread 8-1, not 4-1, and play flawlessly. Obviously spreading 4-1 will yield substantially LESS profits. I suggest that it is a BREAK-EVEN game. If it is minus nineteen cents an hour or pus a buck an hour is thoroughly moot. Y M M V but it certainly will be worse.
Playing this game with a 1-4 spread is good enough if you wish to "play for comps" - with no expectation of profits. Playing with low risk in an attempt to earn comps - without regard to the fact that you are putting your bankroll "at risk" for the dubious value of the comps.
That's the way it works out for lifetime ROR, but that's not the definition. The definition is how much you will need so that you NEVER go broke.
It is unrelated (I want to say "coincidental" but it's not a coincidence) that the maximum probably of going broke is at the number of hands you expect to double your money.
I'll explain in more detail, but the reason why this distinction is important is ...
FALSE.
Your likelihood of tripling your bankroll is the same as your likelihood of doubling your bankroll, or even nonupling your bankroll. The risk of ruin at doubling is the maximum risk of ruin ever in your lifetime. That is why it's called a lifetime ROR.
If you have trouble figuring out why, think about it this way: at a positive EV game, you expect variance. At some time, the amount that you expect to win in EV (which grows linearly with hands played) exceeds the amount of cumulative variance (which grows as the square root of hands played). At some point, you're certain enough of winning so that variance can never bust you.
This maximum point happens to occur when you're expecting to double your bankroll - that is, the percent probability than you end up with -1 bankroll variance is exactly offset by the expectation that you end up with +1 bankroll in EV.
The bottom line is that lifetime ROR can be found by calculating the probability of busting before doubling, but that's not the definition - it's just a shortcut.
It is unrelated (I want to say "coincidental" but it's not a coincidence) that the maximum probably of going broke is at the number of hands you expect to double your money.
I'll explain in more detail, but the reason why this distinction is important is ...
FALSE.
Your likelihood of tripling your bankroll is the same as your likelihood of doubling your bankroll, or even nonupling your bankroll. The risk of ruin at doubling is the maximum risk of ruin ever in your lifetime. That is why it's called a lifetime ROR.
If you have trouble figuring out why, think about it this way: at a positive EV game, you expect variance. At some time, the amount that you expect to win in EV (which grows linearly with hands played) exceeds the amount of cumulative variance (which grows as the square root of hands played). At some point, you're certain enough of winning so that variance can never bust you.
This maximum point happens to occur when you're expecting to double your bankroll - that is, the percent probability than you end up with -1 bankroll variance is exactly offset by the expectation that you end up with +1 bankroll in EV.
The bottom line is that lifetime ROR can be found by calculating the probability of busting before doubling, but that's not the definition - it's just a shortcut.