bankroll questions

[BillytheBJkid]

Ok. I am new to counting and have just finished reading the online book Modern blackjack by qfit and blackjack attack by don schleshinger which were recommended by one of the guys here kelwjason.

It seems like most things in life, you need alot of money to make any money. You need a large bankroll to make any money. Like if you want to make 50 grand a year you have to have a bankroll of 20, 30 thousand or maybe more. Isn't this risky?? If you need alot of money to start, wouldn't it be better to invest that money like in stocks to get the same return?

seems like since I dont have 20 grand to invest that any money I make initially will have to go back into the bankroll. am I reading this rite?

 

[shiznites]

I'm new as well and have been saving up my BR and studying/practicing the past few months. My goal is to have 1000 $15units available. Thanks to the help of a pro, it was determined that this would result in a less than 6% RoR (w/ the game conditions and spread I'll be using) which is a pretty solid investment if you ask me. The point is though, yeah, you do need alot of money to make money.

It seems that you may be looking to do this as a career which I wouldn't recommend, especially with a low BR.

I'm looking to do this (for now) as a part time/hobby. Before I got involved in BJ I did start investing in the stock market (pretty successfully I might add) and the money I made from that will be going into my BR. Personally, I'd rather do BJ then stock market cause with the amount of money I have now I'll be making more playing BJ. I'd also rather invest in BJ cause I love the thrill, I love the casino environment, and most importantly I LOVE THE GAME. Its like a sport to me.

 

[kewljason]

Ok. I am new to counting and have just finished reading the online book Modern blackjack by qfit and blackjack attack by don schleshinger which were recommended by one of the guys here kelwjason.

It seems like most things in life, you need alot of money to make any money. You need a large bankroll to make any money. Like if you want to make 50 grand a year you have to have a bankroll of 20, 30 thousand or maybe more. Isn't this risky?? If you need alot of money to start, wouldn't it be better to invest that money like in stocks to get the same return?

seems like since I dont have 20 grand to invest that any money I make initially will have to go back into the bankroll. am I reading this rite?

yes you do need a substantial bankroll to have a reasonable chance of making money. That is one of the reasons why I advised that you read these particlar books, along with professional blackjack, by stanford wong. They do a much superior job of explaining the bankroll requirements than the 40 year old revere book that you initially read. The days of having a bankroll of a couple thousand dollars and making a living are long gone, as are the good single deck games that he was referring to when he wrote that book. I am glad you understand that concept now.

As for making the same return by investing in the stock market. WoW!! I don't know about that. I know very little about the market, but I don't think that the people that invested back in october 07 when the dow was 14,000 would agree with you. In 18 months from oct '07 to march '09 the dow, nasdaq, and s&p all lost over 50% of their value.

 

[matt21]

Ok. I am new to counting and have just finished reading the online book Modern blackjack by qfit and blackjack attack by don schleshinger which were recommended by one of the guys here kelwjason.

It seems like most things in life, you need alot of money to make any money. You need a large bankroll to make any money. Like if you want to make 50 grand a year you have to have a bankroll of 20, 30 thousand or maybe more. Isn't this risky?? If you need alot of money to start, wouldn't it be better to invest that money like in stocks to get the same return?

seems like since I dont have 20 grand to invest that any money I make initially will have to go back into the bankroll. am I reading this rite?

Yes you need a good bankroll. If you find good playing conditions and play a lot of hours then you stand a chance of making a good return (assuming that your actual results are not too far from your expected theoretical return).

To put some actual numbers to it.
To have an expected return of $50,000 on a $50,000 BR (i.e. 100% in one year), and assuming you only count, you would need to play at least 700-900 hours - i.e. if you are making 1.5 units per hour AND then allowing for some expenses. To make $50,000 on a $25,000 BR in 12 months would require even more hours.
And counting cards, IMHO, even without advanced strategies, is likely to result in returns that are significantly higher than putting that same amount into the stockmarket. But remember also that you are probably putting a lot more effort into counting than as if you were investing in the markets. (I have spent several years trading shares and options).

if you are overbetting your BR, eg playing $10 units with a $3,000 roll, then your chances of blowing yourself up are very high. If you are playing with a $3,000 roll, then a $3,000-$5,000 return would actually be quite good!

The numbers I have given you are based on a lot of statistical and probability analysis that I have completed over the last 12 months - am happy to explain anything in more detail, providing that you start giving kewljason the respect that he deserves.

Good luck

 

[BillytheBJkid]

Yes you need a good bankroll. If you find good playing conditions and play a lot of hours then you stand a chance of making a good return (assuming that your actual results are not too far from your expected theoretical return).

To put some actual numbers to it.
To have an expected return of $50,000 on a $50,000 BR (i.e. 100% in one year), and assuming you only count, you would need to play at least 700-900 hours - i.e. if you are making 1.5 units per hour AND then allowing for some expenses. To make $50,000 on a $25,000 BR in 12 months would require even more hours.
And counting cards, IMHO, even without advanced strategies, is likely to result in returns that are significantly higher than putting that same amount into the stockmarket. But remember also that you are probably putting a lot more effort into counting than as if you were investing in the markets. (I have spent several years trading shares and options).

if you are overbetting your BR, eg playing $10 units with a $3,000 roll, then your chances of blowing yourself up are very high. If you are playing with a $3,000 roll, then a $3,000-$5,000 return would actually be quite good!

The numbers I have given you are based on a lot of statistical and probability analysis that I have completed over the last 12 months - am happy to explain anything in more detail, providing that you start giving kewljason the respect that he deserves.

Good luck

seems like everyone on this site is friends with each other. thats ok, with me though. Thankyou matt for explaining that.

 

[Meistro]

A good bankroll or a good job, which is kind of the same thing.

 

[10JQKA]

Since I first started reading these forums a couple of months ago, there always seems to be a "bankroll" thread in constant conversation. Usually started by a new player asking a simple question about bankroll or a very vague one that forms a mass of responses.

Could some of the best answers not be added to the FAQ?

 

[Kasi]

Ok. I am new to counting and have just finished reading... blackjack attack by don schleshinger...
You need a large bankroll to make any money. Like if you want to make 50 grand a year you have to have a bankroll of 20, 30 thousand or maybe more. Isn't this risky?? am I reading this rite?

Well, probably,you are not reading it right lol.

How much you $win per/hd is fixed in a given game with a given $unit.

Increasing units in roll only increases the chance of achieving a goal - it will always take the same number of rounds to win $50K or whatever.

In other words, take Table 10.43 in Don's book back-counting 1-3 practically.
With a $10Kroll and $100 unit, your ROR is 14% and you will make $40.39 for every 100 hands you see. It will take you $50000/$40.39= 1238 hours to have an EV of $50K.

It will take you those 1238 hours no matter how long it takes you to play 1238 hours in real life, whether a year or playing 22 hours a day for a shorter period of time.

Becasue your risk is so high you may only have an 86% chance of winning $50K playing forever until either achieving goal or going broke.

That's with a $10K roll. Double your roll to $20K and you still win only the same $40.39 for every 100 hands you see and you will still need to see 100/hds/hr for 1238 hours.

The only thing now is, with $20K roll instead of $10K roll, your risk has gone from 14% to less than 2%. Your chances of winning $50K have gone from 86% to 98% becasue you have a larger roll to begin with that you will not have gone broke on sooner becasue you have enough units to weather more extremes of SD should they happen.

Take that same game with a $30K roll, and ROR goes down to 1/4th of one percent - your chances of winning $50K eventually - but it will still be the same 1238 hours - increase to 99.7%+.

So, one chooses one's risk by the size of roll - a larger roll won't make you win any more EV/hd.

See?

 

[Kasi]

Yes you need a good bankroll. If you find good playing conditions and play a lot of hours then you stand a chance of making a good return (assuming that your actual results are not too far from your expected theoretical return).

To put some actual numbers to it.
To have an expected return of $50,000 on a $50,000 BR (i.e. 100% in one year), and assuming you only count, you would need to play at least 700-900 hours - i.e. if you are making 1.5 units per hour AND then allowing for some expenses. To make $50,000 on a $25,000 BR in 12 months would require even more hours.
-if you are overbetting your BR, eg playing $10 units with a $3,000 roll, then your chances of blowing yourself up are very high. If you are playing with a $3,000 roll, then a $3,000-$5,000 return would actually be quite good!

The numbers I have given you are based on a lot of statistical and probability analysis that I have completed over the last 12 months - am happy to explain anything in more detail, providing that you start giving kewljason the respect that he deserves.

Well, no big deal Matt, but when you say "To make $50,000 on a $25,000 BR in 12 months would require even more hours.", you would make it clearer whether you mean chnaging the $unit or keeping it the same.

If you do not change $unit, then it would be the same amount of time but with higher risk. If you do, say, halve $unit, keeping total units in roll the same, then of course it would take longer to win a fixed amount (say $50K).

Then you compare a $3k roll with a $10 unit (300 unit roll), declaring it to be over-betting, apparently compared to both prior rolls withouit ever specifying how many units were in either the $50K roll or $25K roll in the first place.

If both those rolls had 300 units in roll, then, fine, maybe, I guess lol.

One just absolutely must take all factors into consideration without generalization weighing the number of units in a roll to the EV and SD of units per/hd for the game one plays.

300 units in your $3K, $10/unit would be insanity in a 1-16 play-all 4.5/6 S17 DAS game but be almost riskless with a 1-3 BC practical spread in same game.

 

[matt21]

Well, no big deal Matt, but when you say "To make $50,000 on a $25,000 BR in 12 months would require even more hours.", you would make it clearer whether you mean chnaging the $unit or keeping it the same.

If you do not change $unit, then it would be the same amount of time but with higher risk. If you do, say, halve $unit, keeping total units in roll the same, then of course it would take longer to win a fixed amount (say $50K).

Then you compare a $3k roll with a $10 unit (300 unit roll), declaring it to be over-betting, apparently compared to both prior rolls withouit ever specifying how many units were in either the $50K roll or $25K roll in the first place.

If both those rolls had 300 units in roll, then, fine, maybe, I guess lol.

One just absolutely must take all factors into consideration without generalization weighing the number of units in a roll to the EV and SD of units per/hd for the game one plays.

300 units in your $3K, $10/unit would be insanity in a 1-16 play-all 4.5/6 S17 DAS game but be almost riskless with a 1-3 BC practical spread in same game.

hey kasi, sorry i was trying to keep things simple in my post

i was going on the assumption that regardless of BR size, the player would always treat it as a 1,000 unit block - so with a $50k BR you would play a $50 unit, with $25k a $25 unit and so on - hence playing a $10 unit with a $3k roll would be overbetting. Using the same unit-spread, it would be much harder (i.e. take a lot more hours) to make $50k on a $50k BR then it would be to make $50k off a $25k roll. The risk would be the same but the EV would be lower - so assuming you got the same playing conditions you would obviously need to play twice as many hours with the $25 units.

i was trying to give super-precise answer here - that's what the Maths&Theory section is for :grin: but thanks for keeping me on my toes Kasi!

Matt21

 

[BillytheBJkid]

Well, probably,you are not reading it right lol.

How much you $win per/hd is fixed in a given game with a given $unit.

Increasing units in roll only increases the chance of achieving a goal - it will always take the same number of rounds to win $50K or whatever.

In other words, take Table 10.43 in Don's book back-counting 1-3 practically.
With a $10Kroll and $100 unit, your ROR is 14% and you will make $40.39 for every 100 hands you see. It will take you $50000/$40.39= 1238 hours to have an EV of $50K.

It will take you those 1238 hours no matter how long it takes you to play 1238 hours in real life, whether a year or playing 22 hours a day for a shorter period of time.

Becasue your risk is so high you may only have an 86% chance of winning $50K playing forever until either achieving goal or going broke.

That's with a $10K roll. Double your roll to $20K and you still win only the same $40.39 for every 100 hands you see and you will still need to see 100/hds/hr for 1238 hours.

The only thing now is, with $20K roll instead of $10K roll, your risk has gone from 14% to less than 2%. Your chances of winning $50K have gone from 86% to 98% becasue you have a larger roll to begin with that you will not have gone broke on sooner becasue you have enough units to weather more extremes of SD should they happen.

Take that same game with a $30K roll, and ROR goes down to 1/4th of one percent - your chances of winning $50K eventually - but it will still be the same 1238 hours - increase to 99.7%+.

So, one chooses one's risk by the size of roll - a larger roll won't make you win any more EV/hd.

See?

WTF. are you a mathaemtician or something?

 

[johndoe]

WTF. are you a mathaemtician or something?

He may or may not be, but these kinds of calculations are pretty simple, and should be within the grasp of anyone playing blackjack. Otherwise you won't have a sufficient understanding of your advantage, risks, BR requirement, etc.

 

[StandardDeviant]

Not Exactly...

How much you $win per/hd is fixed in a given game with a given $unit.

Increasing units in roll only increases the chance of achieving a goal - it will always take the same number of rounds to win $50K or whatever.

<snip>

See?

If only this were true!

We can calculate expected win per hour, but actual wins per hour or per hand is anything but fixed.

The same goes for how many hands it takes to win a particular amount.

Keep in mind that "expected value" really means 50/50 value. We only have a 50/50 chance (if we play a perfect game) of achieving the expected results or better. It not a guarantee.

 

[StandardDeviant]

WTF. are you a mathaemtician or something?

 

[FLASH1296]

BillytheBJKid,

You said:

"In other words, take Table 10.43 in Don's book back-counting 1-3 practically.
With a $10Kroll and $100 unit, your ROR is 14% and you will make $40.39 for every 100 hands you see. It will take you $50000/$40.39= 1238 hours to have an EV of $50K."

It looks like you have made an egregious error.
If you are "back-counting" 100 hands per hour is impossible.
You will be lucky to play 20 hands per hour.
You may get to play considerably less.
Even if you accept the metric of 20 hands per hour then you are "off" by a factor of FIVE (5).
Ergo, it will take 1,238 x 5 = 6,190 hours.
In order to complete that many hours "Back Counting", (in one year), would require playing 19 hrs. daily.

 

[kewljason]

BillytheBJKid,

You said:

"In other words, take Table 10.43 in Don's book back-counting 1-3 practically.
With a $10Kroll and $100 unit, your ROR is 14% and you will make $40.39 for every 100 hands you see. It will take you $50000/$40.39= 1238 hours to have an EV of $50K."

It looks like you have made an egregious error.
If you are "back-counting" 100 hands per hour is impossible.
You will be lucky to play 20 hands per hour.
You may get to play considerably less.
Even if you accept the metric of 20 hands per hour then you are "off" by a factor of FIVE (5).
Ergo, it will take 1,238 x 5 = 6,190 hours.
In order to complete that many hours "Back Counting", (in one year), would require playing 19 hrs. daily.

I don't think those were BJkids words. It was in his post, but he was quoting "Kasi the mathaemtician" <- :laugh:

egregious and ergo in the same post? You are spending too much time in the "E" section of Merriam-Websters, Flash. :laugh:

BTW, although I suspected it's meaning, I had to look up "ergo" 14th century!! no wonder.

 

[FLASH1296]

L U V to play Scrabble™ and Backgammon

Rather than "ergo" or "thus" I prefer to use "Q.E.D."

That is a scholarly latin abbreviation for "Quad Est Demonstrandum"

Meaning: "Thus it is shown"

It is a term often used in formal debates.

"Egregious" is an odd term as it became its own antonym.

1 outstandingly bad or even shockingly so.
2 archaic use: remarkably good.

I am a pedantic loquacious verbose sesquipedalian.

In simpler / clearer terms that means that I may ramble "in extremis",
(especially when hyper-caffeinated), as I readily assume the risk of being viewed
as tediously arrogant for expressing myself with obscure terminology.

The most laconic description of me is "An Old Gas Bag"

Ironically, "laconic" could well serve as an antonym for my style of communication.

My expressive verbal skills are fine, but my mathematical skills are poor.
As an undergraduate student I avoided all of the "maths" that I could.
I failed to "Ace" two requisite graduate courses in statistics.
My spouse is the exact opposite. She is a scientist. Doh !

Pax Obiscum, ('Peace be with you'), my comrades of the baize,*.

F l a s h


p.s. (post scriptum) Has the reader noticed the radical curtailment of large fonts in my posts.

p.p.s. "Oh My" :laugh: My pipe is clogged. :laugh: "Oh My" and I may have made a latin typo !


* baize |bāz|

a coarse, feltlike, woolen material that is typically green,
used for covering billiard and card tables and for aprons.

ORIGIN: late 16th cent.: from French baies, feminine plural
of bai ‘chestnut-colored’, treated as a singular noun.
presumably derived from the original color of the cloth.

 

[London Colin]

Forgive the pedantry, but if we are giving definitions and spellings, then ...

Rather than "ergo" or "thus" I prefer to use "Q.E.D."

That is a scholarly latin abbreviation for "Quad Est Demonstrandum"

Meaning: "Thus it is shown"

Depending on what source you consult, it's either:

"Quod erat demonstrandum" - "Which was to be shown",

or the present tense : "Quod est demonstrandum" - "Which is to be shown".

[But it's definitely 'quod'.]

Pax Obiscum, ('Peace be with you'

An that should be 'Vobiscum'.

 

[smithj]

Forgive the pedantry, but if we are giving definitions and spellings, then ...


Depending on what source you consult, it's either:

"Quod erat demonstrandum" - "Which was to be shown",

or the present tense : "Quod est demonstrandum" - "Which is to be shown".

[But it's definitely 'quod'.]


An that should be 'Vobiscum'.

Ouch! war is coming...

 

[kewljason]

Ouch! war is coming...

Agreed!! Take cover and shield your eyes from the coming "flash". :laugh: