Lowering Variance by Pooling Bankrolls

SWFL Blackjack

Well-Known Member
#1
On page 345 of "The Book," the Misery Loves Company portion at the bottom of the page shows how pooling bankrolls can lower variance. My question is, if I have the expectation, variance, and standard deviation for a game, what formula can I use to determine the covariance and/or correlation? I want to determine the variance for pooling bankrolls in various games both at the same table and different tables.

Thanks for your help!
 

moo321

Well-Known Member
#2
Well, technically it doesn't lower your variance per hand or anything. It's just that pooling bankrolls allows you to bet more, and thus earn more per hour.

Also, you get more hours down, so your standard deviation more quickly shrinks relative to expected value: that is, you hit the long run faster.

Furthermore, it can be good to have partners around on a trip to whine when you lose, celebrate when you win, share ideas, exploit unexpected things, travel together, etc.

It's imperative that you make sure your partners can play, though.
 
#3
SWFL Blackjack said:
On page 345 of "The Book," the Misery Loves Company portion at the bottom of the page shows how pooling bankrolls can lower variance. My question is, if I have the expectation, variance, and standard deviation for a game, what formula can I use to determine the covariance and/or correlation? I want to determine the variance for pooling bankrolls in various games both at the same table and different tables.
"The Book"? Which? Anyway, more important than lowering variance is the increase in EV,
which can be substantial? No covariance as long as you play at seperate tables. zg
 

SWFL Blackjack

Well-Known Member
#4
zengrifter said:
"The Book"? Which? Anyway, more important than lowering variance is the increase in EV,
which can be substantial? No covariance as long as you play at seperate tables. zg
The OCP section of Exhibit CAA.

I ran the numbers as if the players were playing different tables (no covariance) but I was also trying to factor in multiple hands played at the same table.
 

paddywhack

Well-Known Member
#5
SWFL Blackjack said:
I ran the numbers as if the players were playing different tables (no covariance) but I was also trying to factor in multiple hands played at the same table.
No great help playing at the same table unless you'd normally have to double mins in order to play two hands or unless you just want to take over a table for some reason.

Better to pool the roll and play on separate tables - eliminate the covariance and play with a larger unit/bigger spread.
 
#6
paddywhack said:
Better to pool the roll and play on separate tables - eliminate the covariance and play with a larger unit/bigger spread.
SWFL hasn't clarified whether his pooling hypothetical involves AP +EV play. zg
 

Baberuth

Well-Known Member
#7
Better rules for higher min games

Pooling for a higher min game with better rules, H17 or S17 could be beneficial. The experience with heat, cover, spread and length of play etc. may enter in the decision.

If a tap occurs, the other guy can step up.
 

WRX

Well-Known Member
#9
SWFL Blackjack said:
On page 345 of "The Book," the Misery Loves Company portion at the bottom of the page shows how pooling bankrolls can lower variance. My question is, if I have the expectation, variance, and standard deviation for a game, what formula can I use to determine the covariance and/or correlation? I want to determine the variance for pooling bankrolls in various games both at the same table and different tables.
For two players sitting at different tables, there is NO covariance. Remember that covariance is a measure of the tendency of two hands to have the same result. The outcomes of two hands at separate tables are entirely independent events. In this situation, you can calculate the Kelly fraction, based on your combined bankroll, just as if you were playing alone. And you can calculate the resulting variance of a given number of total hands played in the same fashion as though you were playing them all yourself, at one table.

If you are playing two hands simultaneously at the same table, the problem is very different. The covariance between two hands differs from game to game. You need to find a source to look up the covariance for each game that you're interested in. Like variance, covariance will change a bit depending on the strategy that you're employing. The covariance figure for playing basic strategy may not be strictly accurate for the strategy you're playing. For MOST games, variance and covariance don't change a lot depending on play strategy, but there are exceptions in the case of some games if you're diverging wildly from basic strategy. The book to which you refer gives covariance for the variety of the game you are discussing, on the page you cited. If you don't have a source for covariance, it can, in principle, be calculated from the rules of the game, but for many or most games the problem is essentially intractable. Alternatively, if you have a facility to sim a large number of trials, you can get a close estimate of covariance that way.

At the same location, the book you mention gives a formula for calculating the resulting variance for each player. You can use this resulting variance in ordinary fashion to calculate the variance of a given number of total hands played. You can also use it to estimate the Kelly fraction. Remember, however, that the commonly-seen formula for estimating the Kelly fraction using, as the only variables, expectation and variance, is ONLY an estimate. It's a very good estimate for games like blackjack in which a hand usually results in a one unit win or a one unit loss. The estimate can be seriously inaccurate for highly-skewed (lottery-like) games, so be careful.
 

SWFL Blackjack

Well-Known Member
#10
WRX said:
For two players sitting at different tables, there is NO covariance. Remember that covariance is a measure of the tendency of two hands to have the same result. The outcomes of two hands at separate tables are entirely independent events. In this situation, you can calculate the Kelly fraction, based on your combined bankroll, just as if you were playing alone. And you can calculate the resulting variance of a given number of total hands played in the same fashion as though you were playing them all yourself, at one table.

If you are playing two hands simultaneously at the same table, the problem is very different. The covariance between two hands differs from game to game. You need to find a source to look up the covariance for each game that you're interested in. Like variance, covariance will change a bit depending on the strategy that you're employing. The covariance figure for playing basic strategy may not be strictly accurate for the strategy you're playing. For MOST games, variance and covariance don't change a lot depending on play strategy, but there are exceptions in the case of some games if you're diverging wildly from basic strategy. The book to which you refer gives covariance for the variety of the game you are discussing, on the page you cited. If you don't have a source for covariance, it can, in principle, be calculated from the rules of the game, but for many or most games the problem is essentially intractable. Alternatively, if you have a facility to sim a large number of trials, you can get a close estimate of covariance that way.

At the same location, the book you mention gives a formula for calculating the resulting variance for each player. You can use this resulting variance in ordinary fashion to calculate the variance of a given number of total hands played. You can also use it to estimate the Kelly fraction. Remember, however, that the commonly-seen formula for estimating the Kelly fraction using, as the only variables, expectation and variance, is ONLY an estimate. It's a very good estimate for games like blackjack in which a hand usually results in a one unit win or a one unit loss. The estimate can be seriously inaccurate for highly-skewed (lottery-like) games, so be careful.
WRX, thanks for the reply. I used the same formula as JG to determine the standard deviation when two, three, or more players are playing simultaneously at different tables. For two players, I took:

(s²)÷2=v to give me the new variance, then √v=s, which equaled the standard deviation for two players. (s=Standard Deviation & V=variance)

For three players, I did the same equation, except used (s²)÷3=v to give me the new variance, then √v=s, which equaled the standard deviation for three players.

I think to be on the safe side, I'll just consider the Std. Dev. for two hands to be the same as one hand when playing multiple hands at a table.
 
#12
SWFL Blackjack said:
Yes. My hypothetical situation involves +EV AP techniques in carnival games.
So in those games the individual players would ideally play different tables UNLESS the play requires two or more confederates, in which case the real (ie big) bets MIGHT best be laid down by a single player.

On the other hand if 2 or more hands were played at top bet then I imagine it would be like BJ where the same risk could accommodate overall bigger bet, or yes the same total bet with reduced flux. Thats my best poser answer, but I haven't read the "The Book" (waiting for my autographed review copy). zg
 
#13
zengrifter said:
So in those games the individual players would ideally play different tables UNLESS the play requires two or more confederates, in which case the real (ie big) bets MIGHT best be laid down by a single player.

On the other hand if 2 or more hands were played at top bet then I imagine it would be like BJ where the same risk could accommodate overall bigger bet, or yes the same total bet with reduced flux. Thats my best poser answer, but I haven't read the "The Book" (waiting for my autographed review copy). zg
I guess to the extent that the carnival game has a jackpot payout it would be good to lower the variance...
but you can still bet somewhat bigger as well, right? zg-poser
 
Top