dough_boi said:
I've read that to account for variance multiply by 76% and I'm using 64% so I believe I was playing on the safe side already. As for your formula, I've read that variance for blackjack is about 1.2 or about 83% of your bankroll*advantage. Again, I'm betting below that amount so my betting schedule looks fine to me. I was asking about my RoR not the efficiency of my betting schedule.
I can't believe gamemaster said variance is 1.2. Maybe you are rounding up SD?
The 76% comes from, say, a typical BJ game has SD of 1.15 units. Square that you get 1.3225. 1/1.3225=0.756 or 76%.
Let's call it 0.75 here. Rukus is saying cell C6 should be $30*.75 or $22.5. So your actual $20 bet is "technically" 89% of full-kelly, nowhere near 75% as you seem to think.
In your $15K schedule your TC+2 bet is almost 1.5 times Kelly so you are not betting below that amount. Or even at TC+3. Chances are if you bet to that schedule when you had $15 K your ROR was higher than at $10K schedule.
But, like you say, "all" it changes is the %age of Kelly, and your bet spread is what it is.
The glaring deficiency is that you ask your ROR to be calculated but you never mention the frequencies that the TC's you bet at will occur.
Maybe Sonny assumed you never play a hand at TC-1. Is that what you do?
Are you using 1-hand bets or the spread to 2 hands schedule?
But, like you say, although Sonny maybe had to assume a few things, like Spock, I'd take his guess any day lol. Are you not the least bit interested in what Sonny did assume in arriving at his conlusion and what he did to arrive at that? I confess I am. Just because I would be mostly clueless how to proceed to answer your orig ROR question.
So, while I plead guilty to being anal in pointing out your entire Column C is simply, how can I put it, "wrong" comes to mind, I am also interested in what I might call an "anal" obsession with this max bet=1% stuff. What's that about anyway? A back-counter might have a min bet of 1% roll, etc. Would you always have a max bet of 1% roll no matter how you'd choose to play that game, play-all, backcounting, wonging-out, etc?
If you were willing to play with 15% ROR originally with $10K roll, why are you unwilling now to play with that same risk? What risk would you be willing to play at going forward amd why not choose to bet in a way that would be that risk?
Maybe it's time, with $28K roll, to toy with the idea of investing $100 in software just to take any guess work out of the equation for now and evermore?
From one OCD to another, good luck :grin:
