Assuming your BR stays relatively constant, allowing for fluctuation due to winning/losing sessions, then your unit would vary based on your rating of the game?
Example: Your BR is 50K, you encounter a game that you rate as game A, you divide $50,000 by 800 and play a $60 unit (62.50 rounded down), later you play a game that you rate as C, you play a $40 unit? ($41.66 rounded)
This may be mathematically sound, but I would play both games at a steady $50 unit. By changing units sizes, especially to where you are mixing chip denominations, slows the game down as far as betting and payouts. The gain of exact optimal betting may be offset by the slower game and less rounds per hour.
Example: Your BR is 50K, you encounter a game that you rate as game A, you divide $50,000 by 800 and play a $60 unit (62.50 rounded down), later you play a game that you rate as C, you play a $40 unit? ($41.66 rounded)
This may be mathematically sound, but I would play both games at a steady $50 unit. By changing units sizes, especially to where you are mixing chip denominations, slows the game down as far as betting and payouts. The gain of exact optimal betting may be offset by the slower game and less rounds per hour.
I think Flash meant that as a way to determine how much of a starting bankroll you'll need in regards to the quality of the game you plan on playing, not adjusting bet sizes to the quality of the game. And playing with a different unit size on different games could be disastrous to a small bankroll due to the increased variance, no?
K.J. said … "By changing units sizes, especially to where you are mixing chip denominations, slows the game down as far as betting and payouts."
You gave the examples of $60 and $40 units.
I concur. I too always use round figures like $25, $50, etc.
More important than the "slowdown" is the risk of looking like an amateur card counter.
The figures that I gave were approximate in extremis.
They are meant to be rounded off.
In my mind that is blatantly obvious.
I sure regret having been thoughtless.
You gave the examples of $60 and $40 units.
I concur. I too always use round figures like $25, $50, etc.
More important than the "slowdown" is the risk of looking like an amateur card counter.
The figures that I gave were approximate in extremis.
They are meant to be rounded off.
In my mind that is blatantly obvious.
I sure regret having been thoughtless.
I just like to play with an extreme level of comfort--which is why I recommended 1000 units as a minimum. Obviously, underfunded bankrolls are at the top of reasons of failure of new players.
The 2000 units is just my personal comfort level. I love having a very low ROR. I think this level of ease translates to the pit.
Ian Anderson said in Burning The Tables to not listen to the people who say 400 units is enough; and that if he played with only 400 units, he'd have been broke half a dozen times.
He said he never lost 2000 units (spreading 1-18 or more)--although he came close.
Best regards,
FD
The 2000 units is just my personal comfort level. I love having a very low ROR. I think this level of ease translates to the pit.
Ian Anderson said in Burning The Tables to not listen to the people who say 400 units is enough; and that if he played with only 400 units, he'd have been broke half a dozen times.
He said he never lost 2000 units (spreading 1-18 or more)--although he came close.
Best regards,
FD
Remember the context in which Ian Andersen plays - how much EV (increasing RoR) do you lose if you follow his recommendations re camouflage plays, betting spread camouflage and so on ? Asides from comfort level, if you look at your game and betting ramp these incorporate what you are giving up (-EV, +SD (maybe) and +RoR) for cover. As is said about service, price and quality - pick any two. So out of high EV, low risk, and cover - pick any two - or is it one ?...
Another issue with BR recommendations is the denomination of units: if your spread is large and your top bet frequent then your variance driver (and RoR) becomes your top bet - for spreading $10 - $250 (if your $250 bet is frequent) a "unit size" of $10 makes little sense. On the other hand, you could argue that BR "one size fits all" sizing works for standard SD/shoe games with a 1-4 o/ ~ 1-10 ramp, which I assume is standard US ?
Too small a bankroll is often quoted as one of the top reasons for new players failing - but is this really true ? Lack of understanding about the game, poor table selection, incorrect bet spread, counting, playing and betting errors, gambling ... My guess would be that is these problems rather than fluctuations which kill the BR and eliminate new players...
D.
Another issue with BR recommendations is the denomination of units: if your spread is large and your top bet frequent then your variance driver (and RoR) becomes your top bet - for spreading $10 - $250 (if your $250 bet is frequent) a "unit size" of $10 makes little sense. On the other hand, you could argue that BR "one size fits all" sizing works for standard SD/shoe games with a 1-4 o/ ~ 1-10 ramp, which I assume is standard US ?
Too small a bankroll is often quoted as one of the top reasons for new players failing - but is this really true ? Lack of understanding about the game, poor table selection, incorrect bet spread, counting, playing and betting errors, gambling ... My guess would be that is these problems rather than fluctuations which kill the BR and eliminate new players...
D.
Last edited:
Andersen's Ultimate Gambit was ingenious for its day, but it's irrelevant now in the 21st century (with a Survey Voice automatically run on all high-limit players): cover plays or not, the computer will correlate the big bets with the high True Count. Mind you, some of his Green Gambit plays might still work (where a skills check is not automatic). But of course, Surveillance has read all the books.
I cited Andersen because I like his ultra low-risk approach to ROR. But to each his own. My way of thinking was that a conservative approach would be prudent for a new player; to start him off on the right foot, if you will; and that a general guideline might be easiest for him to understand as a brand new player.
FD
I cited Andersen because I like his ultra low-risk approach to ROR. But to each his own. My way of thinking was that a conservative approach would be prudent for a new player; to start him off on the right foot, if you will; and that a general guideline might be easiest for him to understand as a brand new player.
FD
StandardDeviant said:
Is it commonplace to run the Survey Voice analysis on all high-bet players? I assume one's only defense then is to keep play very short (or play for chicken feed).
Because think of what those rooms are designed to do: From The Card Counter's Guide to Surveillance by Cellini:
1. Draw the average-skill players with money or credit.
2. Intimidate those with little gaming experience and small bankrolls.
3. Scare card counters.
In other words, they're designed to keep out all possible threats to the bottom line.
But keep in mind, the minimum number of rounds required for this program to make an educated guess is about 75, or around one hour of play. In other words, it only works if you hang around, play, and actually count continuously for an hour or so.
Last edited: