moo321
Well-Known Member
Why is that? Bankroll has nothing to do with skill.
Team Investing Question
- Thread starter IloveBjs
- Start date
Why is that? Bankroll has nothing to do with skill.
But it has everything to do with profitability. With a 10k bankroll you really aren't giving any incentive for you players to play. Their hourly earnings are going to be so small that McD's workers will be earning a kings ransom by comparison - especially when you consider that the investor wants 70%.
Consider that you don't want to take too great a risk, so at the very highest you are going to play 0.5 kelly. This means that you are going to have a unit size of $19. Say $20. Your spotters would have to back count for this to be profitable at all and even then, you're not looking at it being overly high on expectation. Why would anyone want to play for you? What's their incentive? It's certainly not money.
RJT.
With a $10,000 BR,what would youe expected earnings per hour be?I'm guessing not much more than $10. Your investor gets 7,leaving you with $3,if your expenses are zero.Assuming you have any skill,you can make $3 an hour with a $500 BR,so why would you need an investor?
I'm thinking anyone that would go for such a deal hasn't the required skill in the first place.If they did,they'd know what a lousy deal it is.
zengrifter
Banned
zengrifter
Banned
Thats good rationale. Have him call me. zg
moo321
Well-Known Member
Where are we getting $10 an hour from? A 400 unit bank yields $25 units, and just back-counting spreading 1-8 you should be able to win 1.5 units an hour (according to Blackjack Attack).
Something in there doesn't sound right to me. U sure? What game r u talking about?
So why don't you invest $10,000 with them? You'll be making over $20 an hour on a rather paltry investment.
Or is it only good in the abstract?
You want to spread $25-$200 on a non-replenisible bankroll?
moo321
Well-Known Member
Is a 1-8 spread back-counting with a 400 unit bank considered aggressive? I'm pretty sure that's under 5% risk of ruin. I thought that was the approach recommended in blackjack attack, but maybe that's considered aggressive...
And it wouldn't be a non-replenishable personal bankroll, it would be a team bank.
I personally consider a 5% ROR to be very aggressive. I try to never play with more than a 1% ROR if possible. Losing the entire bankroll 1 in 20 times is insane!
And from what i can see here it is a non-replenishable bankroll. Unless the investor intends to add more to it as the year goes by......
RJT.
This sounds like good advice but is kind of general. Like what is a reasonable split for investors and player? When would you detemine is a good time to split up profits? And what kind of terms should you set in an agreement beforehand? Do you personally have or had such agreements with outside money people? If so how did it work out.
As far as my personal experience and that of other similar teams, the split was always 50/50 for players and investors. It doesn't matter if the investors are players or not the split always remained the same. Of course if there were multiple investors each would get their proportionate share of the 50%. The same with the players share. Each player was paid according to hours played, and in our case position on the team. We would determine when to split up money, or breaking bank, based on a money goal. There was a backup plan if it in fact it was taking too long to reach that goal. Basically we would set a money goal and then through E.V. set a realistic amount of playing hours to reach it. More times than not we would hit it before the allotted time, but in the rare cases when we did not we would split any profits we had when we reached the time deadline. These were the basic guidelines presented to the investors. That and the minimum timelines we would secure the investment before it could be withdrawn. We would also have the guidelines of the teams expectation and playing rules to give the investor an educated estimation on return. Also all expenses not covered by comps came off the top before the split. We also reserved the right to perform or have performed backround investigations on all potential investors. To be honest it works for some to operate teams in this way, but not for the majority. If its a small amount and you know and trust the investor and vice versa it can help get your game off the ground. But as soon as your able its best to be independently financed. There are some big name teams operating with investors right now, but to be honest they aren't too profitable. Having a big name front the team helps get investors, and even with big losses keep them coming, but most starting teams don't have that luxury. The most profitable teams that I have known finance their own play, I suggest that route for most.
I don't have a sim, so I don't really have a clue, but, if so, I just can't see that would give rise to 1.5 units ($37.50/hr) profit/hr like I think u said.
Perhaps, if u specify at what counts u enter and leave and at what counts u bet how many units, and maybe at what game with what penetration, somebody could sim it for u/us.
Well, keep in mind an optimal bet will give rise to a about a 13.5% ROR I think.
After all, it might take 300,000 hands or more for a flat betting $5 player to lose $10K.
It just seems for a card-counter to play to a 1% ROR would mean such a small amount of profit unless ur bankroll is absolutely huge.
But whatever works for u is right!
No big deal but I can't seem to find it.
But, no, I don't think 25-200 backcounting a 8D with a $10K roll is aggressive.
Absolutely nothing to back that up lol.
I just can't see 1.5 units an hour but, again, nothing at all to back it up.
Yes optimal betting will give you a 13.5% ROR, but then you've got to remember that Kelly betting doesn't take certain things into account. Firstly it doesn't care if you lose all of your bankroll. Personally, despite the fact that my bankroll's replenishable, i'd be totally gutted if i lost my entire stake. Also Kelly doesn't care if you have to bet less than the minimum. I do. Then you have to think that Kelly (to bet optimally) would have you betting fractions of a unit, which you can't.
You are never going to bet optimally. In fact reducing risk is the name of the game. Look at the old MIT teams, they played a little less than 0.3 Kelly and they made a mint. Ian Anderson has no less than 1000 units at any one time - far less than full Kelly. I don't have figures for the Hyland team, but you can bet they play a lot less than full Kelly. The really sucessful players all play substancially less than full Kelly, it's just accepted that full K is too high a ROR.
RJT.
I pretty much agree with all u say.
Trust me, I play with belts and suspenders. And then some. Basically, I hate losing alot more than I like winning.
I'd never recommend anyone playing beyond his comfort level.
All I ask from anyone is they have a clue of what their ROR is for the game and penetration they r playing, the spread they are playing with, and the bankroll they are playing with, be it replenishable, semi-replenishable, trip bankroll, session bankroll or all the money they have, and are willing to accept a lower win rate if that ROR is less than optimal.
As u say/imply, the worst thing anyone can do is over-bet a bankroll because they are greedy, undisciplined, ignorant or whatever.
All of which is why I enjoy counting in my own way, except for the called-for betting
