borrowed money
- Thread starter Tbone1020
- Start date
The right circumstances
I had to go back and see if I read that correctly, the part about the $1000 bankroll. It's sort of like this... to borrow money to gamble on is crazy AND stupid. Flash pointed out about those people whacking a credit card at the cage and paying outrageous fees to do this. They lost big before they even lost! (Or are about to continue to lose since I doubt those people strolled into the casino with zero cash on them and only a credit card to play on). AutoMonkey had an interesting twist and a great way to scam yourself a bankroll together but that only works if you have no diversified assets, real property, etc. and have no problem having your credit destroyed besides. Of course this also means that if you bust out your bankroll you have nothing and get to live with those people under the drainpipes talked about on another message thread...
Let's talk about the right circumstances (and the ONLY circumstances that "borrowing" up a bankroll makes sense). The drawback is that there is only one and you DON'T qualify. A professional card-counter with a proven track record getting "financial backing" or involvement with team play and not a loan at all. Even this is not too feasible--why is that? Because a professional card-counter with a proven track record does not NEED or WANT anyone's financial backing. He has made enough to operate quite comfortably on his own. I have had an offer or two over the years along the lines of "financial backing" and flatly refused it.
In the case of a long-term investment (rather than a loan) you lose some of your hard earned money and there is only so much of the pie to go around! Let's say over the long haul you average $25-50 an hour; Let's say also this is about the very best you can do (proven out over a long period of time, years of play) with a relatively large amount of money backing you up to keep ROR minimal. Chopping that small amount up means you could do something risk-free that you could make more money at, such as a convenience store clerk! Things swing up and down and back and forth in the THOUSANDS but ultimately if you are the best there is you can plow out a reasonable hourly income (based on averaging out years of play). Chopping up this profit means you make just about nothing for your monumental efforts. In addition to that if things go bad theoretically your investor(s) could pull the plug on a whim! You essentially answer to them! You would also have to be playing higher stakes in order to meet "the vig" to investor(s) and still make a livable wage. Higher stakes means more scrutiny, more moving around, more paranoia, more problems, etc.
A $1000 dollar bankroll means you DO NOT have a tried and proven track record. It also means that you do not have enough money to even call it "a bankroll". It's a "catch 22" situation. Those that have money can easily obtain more money (with strings attached) but don't need it or want it and those that really need it can't afford it. They are insolvent enough that they shouldn't borrow it and are obviously too high of a risk for any potential lender, public or private. Do things "under your own steam". If you can perform the miraculous and make a profit on a $1000 bankroll and make it grow into something significant, eventually you will not NEED or WANT anyone's financial backing even if they OFFER it to you. If you borrow money at interest, the pathetically small expected income will be eaten up by interest and you make nothing, fighting an uphill battle doing it. If you have "financial backing" you open yourself up to lots of potential problems and the pathetically small income is even smaller!
Understanding the financial management aspect of blackjack is as important as being able to count. Most everyone fails for one reason or another and this little thing goes right up toward the top of the list! One time I was with a friend at the casino and they remarked to me,"Holy sh*t! You made nearly $3000 dollars today!" after we stopped by the cashier's window. I paused, thought about it and said, "No, actually I made roughly $35 an hour." "You only played about 2 hours, so that's $1500 an hour!" He couldn't comprehend the concept... few casual gamblers do. One day does not count... one WEEK does not count... with this all being the case, I have determined that if you play it carefully and play a perfect game, you will make $1.75 an hour on your $1000 bankroll. They have a $1 minimum table at the Isleta casino in New Mexico during the weekdays...
I heard that Jennifer Harmon, (the professional poker player) at one point years back essentially busted out to broke and had to borrow $10,000 to keep rolling. She was even considering giving up poker because of this... over the bad run and being forced to borrow what in the grand scheme of things is a very small amount of money. She had a proven track record though; She came back from the brink of doom and slid by to come back. She did this because she is one of the best poker players in the WORLD! She fulfilled the criteria for this unusual or special circumstance that so few can. The world of blackjack is much the same and only the best make it; To risk money you don't even have makes it even ROUGHER and you DON'T have that tried and proven track record backing you up. Joe Blow the Eskimo typical bonehead that is busted out and looking for more money to gamble with... I would rate as a problem gambler type that will only lose MORE given the opportunity as my first guess.
The summarization of all this leads right back to the very first few posts on this thread!
I had to go back and see if I read that correctly, the part about the $1000 bankroll. It's sort of like this... to borrow money to gamble on is crazy AND stupid. Flash pointed out about those people whacking a credit card at the cage and paying outrageous fees to do this. They lost big before they even lost! (Or are about to continue to lose since I doubt those people strolled into the casino with zero cash on them and only a credit card to play on). AutoMonkey had an interesting twist and a great way to scam yourself a bankroll together but that only works if you have no diversified assets, real property, etc. and have no problem having your credit destroyed besides. Of course this also means that if you bust out your bankroll you have nothing and get to live with those people under the drainpipes talked about on another message thread...
Let's talk about the right circumstances (and the ONLY circumstances that "borrowing" up a bankroll makes sense). The drawback is that there is only one and you DON'T qualify. A professional card-counter with a proven track record getting "financial backing" or involvement with team play and not a loan at all. Even this is not too feasible--why is that? Because a professional card-counter with a proven track record does not NEED or WANT anyone's financial backing. He has made enough to operate quite comfortably on his own. I have had an offer or two over the years along the lines of "financial backing" and flatly refused it.
In the case of a long-term investment (rather than a loan) you lose some of your hard earned money and there is only so much of the pie to go around! Let's say over the long haul you average $25-50 an hour; Let's say also this is about the very best you can do (proven out over a long period of time, years of play) with a relatively large amount of money backing you up to keep ROR minimal. Chopping that small amount up means you could do something risk-free that you could make more money at, such as a convenience store clerk! Things swing up and down and back and forth in the THOUSANDS but ultimately if you are the best there is you can plow out a reasonable hourly income (based on averaging out years of play). Chopping up this profit means you make just about nothing for your monumental efforts. In addition to that if things go bad theoretically your investor(s) could pull the plug on a whim! You essentially answer to them! You would also have to be playing higher stakes in order to meet "the vig" to investor(s) and still make a livable wage. Higher stakes means more scrutiny, more moving around, more paranoia, more problems, etc.
A $1000 dollar bankroll means you DO NOT have a tried and proven track record. It also means that you do not have enough money to even call it "a bankroll". It's a "catch 22" situation. Those that have money can easily obtain more money (with strings attached) but don't need it or want it and those that really need it can't afford it. They are insolvent enough that they shouldn't borrow it and are obviously too high of a risk for any potential lender, public or private. Do things "under your own steam". If you can perform the miraculous and make a profit on a $1000 bankroll and make it grow into something significant, eventually you will not NEED or WANT anyone's financial backing even if they OFFER it to you. If you borrow money at interest, the pathetically small expected income will be eaten up by interest and you make nothing, fighting an uphill battle doing it. If you have "financial backing" you open yourself up to lots of potential problems and the pathetically small income is even smaller!
Understanding the financial management aspect of blackjack is as important as being able to count. Most everyone fails for one reason or another and this little thing goes right up toward the top of the list! One time I was with a friend at the casino and they remarked to me,"Holy sh*t! You made nearly $3000 dollars today!" after we stopped by the cashier's window. I paused, thought about it and said, "No, actually I made roughly $35 an hour." "You only played about 2 hours, so that's $1500 an hour!" He couldn't comprehend the concept... few casual gamblers do. One day does not count... one WEEK does not count... with this all being the case, I have determined that if you play it carefully and play a perfect game, you will make $1.75 an hour on your $1000 bankroll. They have a $1 minimum table at the Isleta casino in New Mexico during the weekdays...
I heard that Jennifer Harmon, (the professional poker player) at one point years back essentially busted out to broke and had to borrow $10,000 to keep rolling. She was even considering giving up poker because of this... over the bad run and being forced to borrow what in the grand scheme of things is a very small amount of money. She had a proven track record though; She came back from the brink of doom and slid by to come back. She did this because she is one of the best poker players in the WORLD! She fulfilled the criteria for this unusual or special circumstance that so few can. The world of blackjack is much the same and only the best make it; To risk money you don't even have makes it even ROUGHER and you DON'T have that tried and proven track record backing you up. Joe Blow the Eskimo typical bonehead that is busted out and looking for more money to gamble with... I would rate as a problem gambler type that will only lose MORE given the opportunity as my first guess.
The summarization of all this leads right back to the very first few posts on this thread!
Last edited:
Chametz
There's a way around that too. Before Passover the celebrant is required to rid his house of all chametz (yeast). If that's not possible, one may also sign a contract with a Gentile transferring ownership of all the chametz, so that for the holiday it belongs to the Gentile and not the Jew thus it doesn't violate any rules.
Likewise, anyone wishing to honestly declare bankruptcy can simply give me all his cash the day before his court date, so he can honestly take the oath that he has no cash, and after the bankruptcy is discharged I will return it to him.
:joker:
There's a way around that too. Before Passover the celebrant is required to rid his house of all chametz (yeast). If that's not possible, one may also sign a contract with a Gentile transferring ownership of all the chametz, so that for the holiday it belongs to the Gentile and not the Jew thus it doesn't violate any rules.
Likewise, anyone wishing to honestly declare bankruptcy can simply give me all his cash the day before his court date, so he can honestly take the oath that he has no cash, and after the bankruptcy is discharged I will return it to him.
:joker:
Tarzan touched on what I consider the main point here:
With sufficient skill/edge, $1000 is enough--borrowing is not necessary. Without sufficient skill/edge, borrowing makes no sense for either party, certainly not the investor. Even a "professional card counter" would fall into this latter category, in my opinion. I don't think backing a poker player, OCP player, or a card counter makes much sense as an investment. For every success story of a successfully-backed player (e.g., Jennifer Harman), there are probably a dozen stories of investors whose money was lost the moment they struck the deal. So many ways it can go wrong, only one way it can go right.
With sufficient skill/edge, $1000 is enough--borrowing is not necessary. Without sufficient skill/edge, borrowing makes no sense for either party, certainly not the investor. Even a "professional card counter" would fall into this latter category, in my opinion. I don't think backing a poker player, OCP player, or a card counter makes much sense as an investment. For every success story of a successfully-backed player (e.g., Jennifer Harman), there are probably a dozen stories of investors whose money was lost the moment they struck the deal. So many ways it can go wrong, only one way it can go right.
Interesting twist
Now let's say you have $1000 to your name and have $1200 in credit card bills due. You can't borrow any money and are unemployed. The casino is giving you $50 cash back or slot dollars. The casino has an 8 deck S17 doa 75% pen. game and is the only casino within driving distance. You're a card counter Do you gamble or not?
Now let's say you have $1000 to your name and have $1200 in credit card bills due. You can't borrow any money and are unemployed. The casino is giving you $50 cash back or slot dollars. The casino has an 8 deck S17 doa 75% pen. game and is the only casino within driving distance. You're a card counter Do you gamble or not?
Lost in the translation?
Thunder Interesting twist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's say you have $1000 to your name and have $1200 in credit card bills due. You can't borrow any money and are unemployed. The casino is giving you $50 cash back or slot dollars. The casino has an 8 deck S17 doa 75% pen. game and is the only casino within driving distance. You're a card counter Do you gamble or not?
You have that situation and you have NO BUSINESS BEING ANYWHERE NEAR A CASINO other than to maybe apply for a job! You are in financial trouble.
ExhibitCAA Tarzan touched on what I consider the main point here:
With sufficient skill/edge, $1000 is enough--borrowing is not necessary.
Uhm... I did not say that! I basically said you have an icecube's chance in hell with only a thousand backing you regardless of skill level. Perhaps I said it in too round about a way.
A thousand is enough only if you can easily afford to lose a thousand. The fluctuation factor will make incredibly short work of 1000 unless you get crazy lucky, regardless of a player's skill level. The swings are just too great even at the lowest of stakes with that limited amount of money.
I also implied that with a 1000 bankroll it's highly doubtful that you have the experience or skill to warrant working with borrowed money, no matter what the source and that operating on borrowed money adds up to financial suicide because of the meager profits that can be attained even if you are the most talented blackjack player going!
Guynoire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can get a loan and your ROI is higher than the interest rate of the loan then of course you should, it's just like starting a business or buying stocks on margin. Just be sure you think of all the variables and factor those into the ROI ie. taxes, margin calls, bankruptcy law, etc.
I have to disagree, Guy. ANY amount of interest chops into it heavily enough that you would work your tail off for practically nothing and you would get your practically nothing only if you played it perfect, your "A" game, your very best and were the most skilled player going. It's difficult enough to make a reasonable profit (in the long-term) with a reasonable bankroll free of encumbrances even if you are a very talented player. I see very few "very talented" players, even among those that purport themselves to be exceptional blackjack players. Anything less than a brilliant, shining star of a player would likely face total failure and even a "very talented" player would struggle to make such a small amount of money that they would make more money as a convenience store clerk or the guy that wipes your car off with rags when you come out of the car wash.
Thunder Interesting twist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's say you have $1000 to your name and have $1200 in credit card bills due. You can't borrow any money and are unemployed. The casino is giving you $50 cash back or slot dollars. The casino has an 8 deck S17 doa 75% pen. game and is the only casino within driving distance. You're a card counter Do you gamble or not?
You have that situation and you have NO BUSINESS BEING ANYWHERE NEAR A CASINO other than to maybe apply for a job! You are in financial trouble.
ExhibitCAA Tarzan touched on what I consider the main point here:
With sufficient skill/edge, $1000 is enough--borrowing is not necessary.
Uhm... I did not say that! I basically said you have an icecube's chance in hell with only a thousand backing you regardless of skill level. Perhaps I said it in too round about a way.
A thousand is enough only if you can easily afford to lose a thousand. The fluctuation factor will make incredibly short work of 1000 unless you get crazy lucky, regardless of a player's skill level. The swings are just too great even at the lowest of stakes with that limited amount of money.
I also implied that with a 1000 bankroll it's highly doubtful that you have the experience or skill to warrant working with borrowed money, no matter what the source and that operating on borrowed money adds up to financial suicide because of the meager profits that can be attained even if you are the most talented blackjack player going!
Guynoire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can get a loan and your ROI is higher than the interest rate of the loan then of course you should, it's just like starting a business or buying stocks on margin. Just be sure you think of all the variables and factor those into the ROI ie. taxes, margin calls, bankruptcy law, etc.
I have to disagree, Guy. ANY amount of interest chops into it heavily enough that you would work your tail off for practically nothing and you would get your practically nothing only if you played it perfect, your "A" game, your very best and were the most skilled player going. It's difficult enough to make a reasonable profit (in the long-term) with a reasonable bankroll free of encumbrances even if you are a very talented player. I see very few "very talented" players, even among those that purport themselves to be exceptional blackjack players. Anything less than a brilliant, shining star of a player would likely face total failure and even a "very talented" player would struggle to make such a small amount of money that they would make more money as a convenience store clerk or the guy that wipes your car off with rags when you come out of the car wash.
Last edited:
As always ... I respect Tarzan's recent posts.
Long-winded, bold-faced, strident rants are my style as well.
Hi mention of Jennifer Harmon being "broke" is worth commenting on.
Virtually ALL top level Professional Poker Players have admitted to being totally broke from time to time.
Playing at the highest stakes imaginable will do that.
It is similar to what we call a Hail Mary Bankroll" in BJ.
NOTE: Jen H. - while playing for "the syndicate" - Heads-Up against Andy Beal won a CASH pot well in excess of $1,000,000 playing Texas Hold Em'.
READ: The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King: Inside the Richest Poker Game of All Time by Michael Craig
There is still one used copy for LESS than $2 at half.ebay.com
http://product.half.ebay.com/The-Professor-the-Banker-and-the-Suicide-King_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ44673983
Thi sis also available used or new at Amazon.com
Long-winded, bold-faced, strident rants are my style as well.
Hi mention of Jennifer Harmon being "broke" is worth commenting on.
Virtually ALL top level Professional Poker Players have admitted to being totally broke from time to time.
Playing at the highest stakes imaginable will do that.
It is similar to what we call a Hail Mary Bankroll" in BJ.
NOTE: Jen H. - while playing for "the syndicate" - Heads-Up against Andy Beal won a CASH pot well in excess of $1,000,000 playing Texas Hold Em'.
READ: The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King: Inside the Richest Poker Game of All Time by Michael Craig
There is still one used copy for LESS than $2 at half.ebay.com
http://product.half.ebay.com/The-Professor-the-Banker-and-the-Suicide-King_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ44673983
Thi sis also available used or new at Amazon.com
Tarzan, you basically said it's a Catch-22: the ones who need to borrow don't have the skill, and the ones with the skill don't need to borrow. I agree with this.
Furthermore, I claim that with sufficient skill, $1000 is enough. This is basically a tautology, as I define "sufficient" as whatever skill level is needed to make $1000 enough money. Note that counting cards is nowhere close to enough skill. Furthermore, there is no doubt whatsoever that the original poster does not have sufficient skill to grow his $1000 (unless he gets fabulously lucky), as indicated immediately by the nature of his question.
Of course, the vast majority of players would be better off working at McDonald's until they could build their $1000 up to $10000. This is a surer way to grow the BR, and also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable.
Furthermore, I claim that with sufficient skill, $1000 is enough. This is basically a tautology, as I define "sufficient" as whatever skill level is needed to make $1000 enough money. Note that counting cards is nowhere close to enough skill. Furthermore, there is no doubt whatsoever that the original poster does not have sufficient skill to grow his $1000 (unless he gets fabulously lucky), as indicated immediately by the nature of his question.
Of course, the vast majority of players would be better off working at McDonald's until they could build their $1000 up to $10000. This is a surer way to grow the BR, and also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable.
Being "fabulously lucky is the great equalizer". I know it worked for me. Started out with 5 grand, 6 years ago on the day I quit my job. Not having the skill or BR and RoR knowledge necessary, I now know I severely overbet my BR. I still thank my stars for that fabulous luck. 
I have read and re-read your quote, ECAA, "also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable" and can't seem to understand your meaning. Can you help me with that.
I have read and re-read your quote, ECAA, "also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable" and can't seem to understand your meaning. Can you help me with that.
kewljason said:
Being "fabulously lucky is the great equalizer". I know it worked for me. Started out with 5 grand, 6 years ago on the day I quit my job. Not having the skill or BR and RoR knowledge necessary, I now know I severely overbet my BR. I still thank my stars for that fabulous luck.
I have read and re-read your quote, ECAA, "also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable" and can't seem to understand your meaning. Can you help me with that.
I have read and re-read your quote, ECAA, "also avoids lots of unnecessary exposure when the rookie is most vulnerable" and can't seem to understand your meaning. Can you help me with that.
I'd like to provide a counter example to this statement - in the last 18 months i've turned a $1600 bankroll into over $100k. It's not been blind luck - i've known exactly what my chances of success were at all times and my results have fallen within normal expections. I actually had a very very low RoR through most of that play. That said i was provided with opportunites that most players aren't and capitalized on them fully.
RJT.
RJT.
Most of the responses are talking about the money.
I'll bring up STRESS.
Can you handle losing discretionary money set aside for blackjack? Probably.
Can you handle losing money you need for rent, food, etc.?
With a small edge, can you win--when you HAVE to--to pay off a high interest loan? Even 5% is higher than your edge.
I'll bring up STRESS.
Can you handle losing discretionary money set aside for blackjack? Probably.
Can you handle losing money you need for rent, food, etc.?
With a small edge, can you win--when you HAVE to--to pay off a high interest loan? Even 5% is higher than your edge.
Losing my own money is one thing and it's tough sometimes after a serious loss and long drives home.
But losing borrowed money is much worse I would think and something I will not put myself through. Also, I play with 100% disposable income, so if it's lost, it does not affect other parts of my life. I'm not a serious counter, just a hobby for now, an expensive one some days. But I enjoy it.
Friends of mine have lost their rent monies due to cold cards and then come to me for a loan.
But losing borrowed money is much worse I would think and something I will not put myself through. Also, I play with 100% disposable income, so if it's lost, it does not affect other parts of my life. I'm not a serious counter, just a hobby for now, an expensive one some days. But I enjoy it.
Friends of mine have lost their rent monies due to cold cards and then come to me for a loan.
Investors borrow money all the time to invest in securities. Respectable investment advisors advise their clients to use leverage to improve their return on invested capital. And one could do the same thing for AP blackjack. There are two problems that just need to be managed: (1) if you aren't really careful with money management, you face a high risk of losing more money than you own. and (2) you need to have a loan with a long term, so you don't have to pay back during a losing streak.
It's tricky though. If you have 10K and you borrow another 10K, you now have a 2:1 margin ratio and your standard deviations with respect to the money you own will be twice as large as they were when you were playing without leverage.
BJ has big enough swings to begin with. Who wants to magnify the swings by playing with leverage? Isn't the game ulcer inducing enough to begin with?
It's tricky though. If you have 10K and you borrow another 10K, you now have a 2:1 margin ratio and your standard deviations with respect to the money you own will be twice as large as they were when you were playing without leverage.
BJ has big enough swings to begin with. Who wants to magnify the swings by playing with leverage? Isn't the game ulcer inducing enough to begin with?