
|

December 3rd, 2007, 09:17 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 345
|
|
risk of ruin
can someone tell me what is an acceptable risk of ruin to play with if i have a fixed bankroll?
|

December 3rd, 2007, 10:05 PM
|
 |
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,193
|
|
A true fixed bankroll means that you will never, ever, ever, be able to replenish it. If you lose it, you're at, best, out of the game forever, and and worst, you're living on the streets, because your bankroll is what you used for food and rent.
If you start with a full Kelly fraction (for optimal bankroll growth), but never resize bets, you have a 13.5% risk of ruin. Most people are more careful than this if the bankrolls are sizeable.
|

December 3rd, 2007, 10:53 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjbballar23
can someone tell me what is an acceptable risk of ruin to play with if i have a fixed bankroll?
|
Who knows.
If you're talking Kelly fractions, maybe 1/8. Maybe less.
ROR is one thing but chances of losing x percent of roll at some point is another.
Not to mention maybe factor in all the things that can make you lose more.
I mean 13.5% might not sound that bad but do you really want to take a 10% of losing 90% of your bankroll at some point?
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what fraction, if any, any counting teams may have used with their large rolls.
Or how anybody might go about it.
|

December 3rd, 2007, 11:09 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 974
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyRhino
A true fixed bankroll means that you will never, ever, ever, be able to replenish it. If you lose it, you're at, best, out of the game forever, and and worst, you're living on the streets, because your bankroll is what you used for food and rent.
If you start with a full Kelly fraction (for optimal bankroll growth), but never resize bets, you have a 13.5% risk of ruin. Most people are more careful than this if the bankrolls are sizeable.
|
Only to add to what Easy has posted... This is only if you play absolutly perfectly.
__________________
Regards,
MDLBJ
|

December 4th, 2007, 08:52 AM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjbballar23
can someone tell me what is an acceptable risk of ruin to play with if i have a fixed bankroll?
|
Well unfortunately there is no perfect number here. Risk really comes down to what the individual is comfortable with. However you also must be reasonable here. Playing with anything over a full kelly will almost guarantee failure. For myself I like to play with a ror between 2% and 5% at most and I prefer to be at the lower end of the scale. The size of your bankroll will also determine how much risk you must take. The smaller the bankroll the larger the risk you will have to take! Then there is the other side to consider as well such as how fast do you want to double your account. While a low risk might be safer it might not make it worth your time to play if you aren't making enough money. You will have to find a happy median which suits your comfort level. Sorry I can't be specific for you.
Last edited by SystemsTrader; December 4th, 2007 at 08:56 AM.
|

December 5th, 2007, 07:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 88
|
|
I use a 1/10 KEB to my net worth
Depends on your tolerance. Full Kelly is suicide, half kelly is still somewhat aggressive to me.
|

December 6th, 2007, 01:12 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 350
|
|
So if a guy went to Wendover he could play start with a 1000 bankroll and play one red less than the tc and be within reasonable risk could he not?
It would be all min 5 bets until the count rose walking quite often on negative counts when playing a shoe.
__________________
cuts-you-up
|

December 6th, 2007, 06:55 AM
|
 |
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,193
|
|
I don't know if you'd find any shoes in wendover, but if I read that right, in a TC of +5, you'd have (very very approximately) a 2% advantage, and you'd be betting $20 from your $1000 bankroll.
This would sort of kind of approximate fully kelly betting, so if you played infinitely you'd have the 13% chance of losing all $1000, and larger chances of losing a big chunk of the bankroll. But if it was a short trip, the risk of ruin would be smaller.
|

December 6th, 2007, 09:23 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradox
Full Kelly is suicide, half kelly is still somewhat aggressive to me.
|
One-tenth Kelly.
What a breath of fresh air
|

December 18th, 2007, 04:55 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lake Tahoe and reno!
Posts: 663
|
|
Risk of Ruin?
The risk of ruin is directly related to weather or not you are a good enough player to get an advantage. If you are not good enough to get an advantage your risk of ruin is 100% no matter what your bankroll it is just a matter of time. If you can get a advantage than all you need is a bankroll to make the risk of ruin 0 if you have a million unit bank roll than your risk of ruin is 0. The risk of ruin that I generally think of is my playing session bankroll. Because my total buyins total more and more everyday. Lets take your playing bankroll of 40 units and you plan to play for 150 hands of action. Than you would have a considerable risk of losing your playing session bankroll.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 AM.
|