Risk of Ruin help

K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#21
#21
stevess75 said:
I know that I am overbetting my bankroll. The odds of me to double my bankroll before going broke has to be over 50% If your telling me that my bankroll of 4k will go broke 50% of the time before doubling twice that would make sense to me.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody is "overbetting" as long as they understand the overall risk vs reward thing. Your money, your choice.

Like Sonny said, you do have a >50% chance of doubling your bankroll at some point. Probably a 50-50 chance of tripling it at some point. Once you get to a certain point, say $30K or so in winnings, you're pretty much home free as your lifetime ROR from that point forward is about the same, in other words, winning $30K or $100K has about the same 35% liklihood of succeeding from the original roll compared to having gone bust by that point.

Like you say, if they don't get you early, they probably ain't ever gonna get ya :)
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#22
#22
Ferretnparrot said:
Iv always viewed ror as compared to doubling and that in my mind is the default reference of ror, perhaps when we talk about ror we should specify what kinda by typing LROR or TROR or DROR

but i think its also safe to say that if you have a 65% chance of losing $4,000 and a 35% chance of having unlimited money for life, its a pretty awsome buisness plan so long as a 4000 dollar loss wont cause you to lose your home.
Click to expand...
Just so moo321 maybe doesn't get too mad at you, if you type TROR or DROR you better specify a time period lol.

Could very well be an awesome business plan. But that is the flip side of the coin and what lifetime ROR means.

I think anyway lol.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#26
#26
stevess75 said:
sonny if you dont mind what would my lifetime ror be with $100 bets instead of the $200? same 4k bank
Click to expand...
Get off this flat-bet kick and use a 1-5 spread topping out at $100 and you're in business. zg
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#27
#27
blackjack avenger said:
When any of you make statements contradicting the long established ror equations you are contradicting many in the blackjack field who have well established reputations. Griffin, Schlesinger, Snyder and Wong among others.

Optimal betting means optimal, nothing else is as good. Certainly overbetting is not optimal. Overbetting is far worse then underbetting because when you go broke you can't play.

Lifetime ror numbers are appropriate for the short term. The variance is so high in the short term that you need a total bankroll.

Here is something to think about. For a long weekend trip you will need something along the lines of half of your bank.
Click to expand...
All of the people you're citing used risk of ruin equations that specified a period of time. We're not contradicting their equations, we're contradicting your use of them. Some formula (what the hell formula are you even using?) that uses variables that are undefined is useless. "Lifetime" risk of ruin doesn't mean anything unless you define what a lifetime is. How many hands? It's also goofy, because it assumes you never re-size your bets.

Even furthermore, if you're talking about an infinite period of time, then any scheme without bet re-sizing will result in an infinite risk of ruin; given enough time, a bad enough negative fluctuation will wipe out any bankroll. So, eternal risk of ruin is 100%, lifetime risk of ruin is somewhere in the middle, and risk of ruin vs. chance of doubling is almost always below 50%.
 
Last edited:
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#28
#28
moo321 said:
Even furthermore, if you're talking about an infinite period of time, then any scheme without bet re-sizing will result in an infinite risk of ruin; given enough time, a bad enough negative fluctuation will wipe out any bankroll. So, eternal risk of ruin is 100%, lifetime risk of ruin is somewhere in the middle, and risk of ruin vs. chance of doubling is almost always below 50%.
Click to expand...
Well lifetime ROR is kind of a theoretical concept I guess. But basically assuming a very large number of hands, maybe a million or 2 say, that 1000000 people play that way the ROR % will be very close to how many of those people lost their original bankroll.

So no matter how bad the neg fluctuation would have to be it's included in that number. After all it is assumed you are playing a game at an advantage which means you're supposed to win forever. Betting small enough and playing enough hands ROR could essentially be real close to zero.

Hope that helps a little lol.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#29
#29
zengrifter said:
Get off this flat-bet kick and use a 1-5 spread topping out at $100 and you're in business. zg
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that for an 8D AC never playing below TC+2 with a 75% pen?

That's what I thought we were talking about anyway.

I really like the flat bet strategy - great cover anyway.
 
S

stevess75

Member
#30
#30
yep i like the $25 min tables because the tables usually have an open seat. the pen varies but i always backcount the tables with the best pen for that pit. i only like sitting down then standing up 3 times in one casino before moving to the next thats why i like throwing as much money at them as possible.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#31
#31
moo321 said:
"Lifetime" risk of ruin doesn't mean anything unless you define what a lifetime is. How many hands?
Click to expand...
From a mathematical standpoint, “lifetime” means infinite. Since most people don’t know how many hands they will play before they die, this seems to be a good way to err on the side of caution.

moo321 said:
It's also goofy, because it assumes you never re-size your bets.
Click to expand...
That’s very true, but in some cases it is more important to look at the long-term affects of playing a certain way. In this case, Stevess75 is starting with a 20-unti bankroll. He’s not going to be resizing his bets anytime soon because his bankroll is so small. If he only looks at his RoR vs. Doubling then he might get a false sense of security. After all, even if he doubles his bankroll he is still very likely to lose his new 40-unit bankroll. Even after doubling it 2, 3 and even 4 times there is still a relatively large chance he will go broke. Looking only at RoR vs. Doubling ignores this fact.

For people with bigger bankrolls I agree that short-term RoR formulas are much more useful, but the lifetime formula can also offer valuable insight in cases where the short-term formulas are too shortsighted.

moo321 said:
Even furthermore, if you're talking about an infinite period of time, then any scheme without bet re-sizing will result in an infinite risk of ruin; given enough time, a bad enough negative fluctuation will wipe out any bankroll. So, eternal risk of ruin is 100%…
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. By the time you reach that big negative swing you may have built up your bankroll enough to make it through without going broke. As your bankroll increases, your RoR decreases. I believe AutoMonkey coined the term “escape velocity” with regard to this issue. If you can build up your bankroll in the beginning then you don’t have to worry about what happens later on because you will be ready for it. Or, as Schlesinger says, “If they don’t get you early on, they probably won’t.”

-Sonny-
 
moo321

moo321

Well-Known Member
#33
#33
Sonny said:
From a mathematical standpoint, “lifetime” means infinite. Since most people don’t know how many hands they will play before they die, this seems to be a good way to err on the side of caution.



That’s very true, but in some cases it is more important to look at the long-term affects of playing a certain way. In this case, Stevess75 is starting with a 20-unti bankroll. He’s not going to be resizing his bets anytime soon because his bankroll is so small. If he only looks at his RoR vs. Doubling then he might get a false sense of security. After all, even if he doubles his bankroll he is still very likely to lose his new 40-unit bankroll. Even after doubling it 2, 3 and even 4 times there is still a relatively large chance he will go broke. Looking only at RoR vs. Doubling ignores this fact.

For people with bigger bankrolls I agree that short-term RoR formulas are much more useful, but the lifetime formula can also offer valuable insight in cases where the short-term formulas are too shortsighted.



Not necessarily. By the time you reach that big negative swing you may have built up your bankroll enough to make it through without going broke. As your bankroll increases, your RoR decreases. I believe AutoMonkey coined the term “escape velocity” with regard to this issue. If you can build up your bankroll in the beginning then you don’t have to worry about what happens later on because you will be ready for it. Or, as Schlesinger says, “If they don’t get you early on, they probably won’t.”

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
Over the course of eternity, you will face negative fluctuations that are infinitely large. Therefore, the risk of ruin hits 100%. It is possible to lose 100 million hands in a row if you play long enough.

We are running into the same problem I've been pointing out all along; we're giving risk of ruin numbers without any idea of how many hands they're defined over. How many hands is a "lifetime"? Just tell me, and the posters that come in and ask for risk of ruin numbers, how many hands you're talking about, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#34
#34
moo321 said:
Over the course of eternity, you will face negative fluctuations that are infinitely large. Therefore, the risk of ruin hits 100%. It is possible to lose 100 million hands in a row if you play long enough.
Click to expand...
But you have to subtract the probability that your bankroll is greater than 100 million bets by the time that negative fluctuation occurs. The probability of losing that many hands is pretty slim so you are very likely to have won a lot of money by that time. As you approach infinity, the probability that your bankroll is large enough to sustain such a large loss increases. From the minute you win your first hand your RoR decreases. The more you win, the bigger the negative swing needs to be and less likely you are to ever lose it all back. Once you reach escape velocity you are pretty much home free.

-Sonny-
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#35
#35
A lifetime of BJ

moo321 said:
Over the course of eternity, you will face negative fluctuations that are infinitely large. Therefore, the risk of ruin hits 100%. It is possible to lose 100 million hands in a row if you play long enough.

We are running into the same problem I've been pointing out all along; we're giving risk of ruin numbers without any idea of how many hands they're defined over. How many hands is a "lifetime"? Just tell me, and the posters that come in and ask for risk of ruin numbers, how many hands you're talking about, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
Why not just pick a nice juicy round number, let's say 1,000,000?
That breaks down to 10,000 hours which tranlates to 500 hours/ yr. for 20 years. That's almost 2 hours a day, every day. By that time you'll either be burned out, divorced and can no longer afford playing, booted from every casino or suffering from alcoholism, lung cancer or spinal and or hemorrhoidal conditions.
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#36
#36
Sonny said:
But you have to subtract the probability that your bankroll is greater than 100 million bets by the time that negative fluctuation occurs. The probability of losing that many hands is pretty slim so you are very likely to have won a lot of money by that time. As you approach infinity, the probability that your bankroll is large enough to sustain such a large loss increases. From the minute you win your first hand your RoR decreases. The more you win, the bigger the negative swing needs to be and less likely you are to ever lose it all back. Once you reach escape velocity you are pretty much home free.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
Sonny, wasn't it you that used the analogy of an airplane after takeoff? I.e. the greater the altitute the plane reaches, the lesser the chance it has of crashing to earth, being more capable to withstand turbulence, down drafts and engine power loss. It made prefect sense to me.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#37
#37
bj bob said:
Why not just pick a nice juicy round number, let's say 1,000,000?
Click to expand...
That sounds good to me, although the RoR for 1M hands will be almost identical to the lifetime RoR numbers.

-Sonny-
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#38
#38
Sonny said:
That sounds good to me, although the RoR for 1M hands will be almost identical to the lifetime RoR numbers.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
So, there we go. Let's just use the 1M figure as a standard definition of lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top