N0 Table Max Bets

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
#1
It's perhaps not advisable to bet table max, even if one is facing molten lead heat. It can always get hotter. The table max bet may also on its own bring attention. The brazeness may be to much for casino staff to tolerate. However, the point of this thread is thoughts on what effect table max constraints can have on one's bankroll.

A player has used some fraction of Kelly resizing. His bank has grown and his top bet is beyond the table max bet. Should the player place his top bet at lower TCs while keeping the same Kelly fraction?

If the player chooses to place the top bet at lower TCs; thereby lowering spread, he will be raising N0. This will lead to betting larger amounts of money on smaller advantages. This could be very costly. In contrast, if the player chooses to keep the same bet ramp the bank will grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly. This would cause a lowering of N0. The N0 is lowered because there is less dramatic bet resizing down on losses.

If the player decides to let his bank grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly at some point the bank is so large that even on large losses there is little resizing bets down. At this point placing top bets at lower TCs have little chance of causing a large drawdown. What is this kelly fraction? Well, 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly resizing comes to mind.:grin:

This is probably why pros have such conservative bankrolls. They are constrained by table max's and still want to use a reasonable betting spread.
 

moo321

Well-Known Member
#2
If we're talking about a standard game where the table max is maybe 100 times the min (5-500) I wouldn't be spreading up to table max. Flat betting is different, and if the ratio is different (5-100), this advice changes too.
 

blackjack avenger

Well-Known Member
#4
N0 Escape

moo321 said:
If we're talking about a standard game where the table max is maybe 100 times the min (5-500) I wouldn't be spreading up to table max. Flat betting is different, and if the ratio is different (5-100), this advice changes too.
No matter the spread or Kelly fraction one used if they raise bets with bank growth they face the N0 issues
 

bigplayer

Well-Known Member
#6
blackjack avenger said:
It's perhaps not advisable to bet table max, even if one is facing molten lead heat. It can always get hotter. The table max bet may also on its own bring attention. The brazeness may be to much for casino staff to tolerate. However, the point of this thread is thoughts on what effect table max constraints can have on one's bankroll.

A player has used some fraction of Kelly resizing. His bank has grown and his top bet is beyond the table max bet. Should the player place his top bet at lower TCs while keeping the same Kelly fraction?

If the player chooses to place the top bet at lower TCs; thereby lowering spread, he will be raising N0. This will lead to betting larger amounts of money on smaller advantages. This could be very costly. In contrast, if the player chooses to keep the same bet ramp the bank will grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly. This would cause a lowering of N0. The N0 is lowered because there is less dramatic bet resizing down on losses.

If the player decides to let his bank grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly at some point the bank is so large that even on large losses there is little resizing bets down. At this point placing top bets at lower TCs have little chance of causing a large drawdown. What is this kelly fraction? Well, 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly resizing comes to mind.:grin:

This is probably why pros have such conservative bankrolls. They are constrained by table max's and still want to use a reasonable betting spread.
Agree, you should NEVER make table max bets. If table max is $500 bet $450. Table max calls get lots of attention and may automatically require a call to the eye by house procedures. If your bankroll is big enough you might be justified to make your "top bet" for that game anytime you have an advantage.
 
#8
Does N0, SCORE & DI Mean Something?

Solo player said:
I used to play single deck games this way. Worked well for me.
Flat bet, big bets ay any advantage? What Kelly fraction were you using? By game measures this seems to not be a great game.
 
#9
Massive Bank Plus Conservative Kelly Fraction

bigplayer said:
If your bankroll is big enough you might be justified to make your "top bet" for that game anytime you have an advantage.
This is the crux of the thread. Perhaps do the above with 1/4 Kelly or more conservative fraction. The variance will be great.
 

Solo player

Well-Known Member
#10
blackjack avenger said:
Flat bet, big bets ay any advantage? What Kelly fraction were you using? By game measures this seems to not be a great game.
This was over 10 years ago. I only played red chips at that time. Min. 5$ max. 50$. Playing single deck any count of +1 or higher was a 50$ bet. At that time I'm sure I had no clue about kelly. But it did work. My first back off came when I was playing this way.
 
#11
N0 Consistency

blackjack avenger said:
It's perhaps not advisable to bet table max, even if one is facing molten lead heat. It can always get hotter. The table max bet may also on its own bring attention. The brazeness may be to much for casino staff to tolerate. However, the point of this thread is thoughts on what effect table max constraints can have on one's bankroll.

A player has used some fraction of Kelly resizing. His bank has grown and his top bet is beyond the table max bet. Should the player place his top bet at lower TCs while keeping the same Kelly fraction?

If the player chooses to place the top bet at lower TCs; thereby lowering spread, he will be raising N0. This will lead to betting larger amounts of money on smaller advantages. This could be very costly. In contrast, if the player chooses to keep the same bet ramp the bank will grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly. This would cause a lowering of N0. The N0 is lowered because there is less dramatic bet resizing down on losses.

If the player decides to let his bank grow to a more conservative fraction of Kelly at some point the bank is so large that even on large losses there is little resizing bets down. At this point placing top bets at lower TCs have little chance of causing a large drawdown. What is this kelly fraction? Well, 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly resizing comes to mind.:grin:

This is probably why pros have such conservative bankrolls. They are constrained by table max's and still want to use a reasonable betting spread.
I don't think its subjective.
Rethinking the above, one would not place top bets sooner; ever:eek:, even with a very large bank. One would always want to play with the lowest N0 possible. This holds true especially if winning is your objective. Also, not raising bets still increases EV because there is less resizing; eventually no, resizing bets down on losses.

By letting the bank grow to a more conservative Kelly fraction you are raising EV by lowering variance. With placing top bets sooner you are raising EV by raising variance.

If one has a high cost of ruin the above is even more true. As is probably the case with large banks.
 
Last edited:
Top