I don't need to try and make big money quick after suffering a $500 lost after wonging in on a $25 and loosing several 2 x $75 on a good high TC now I just want slow steady safe growth. I am thinking this can be achieved best by perhaps cutting back a little on the betting ramps were as one would be one unit less than TC perhaps even go a little lower but at the same time always wong out below TC1 and do not wong in below TC1 or 2. That way you would not need quite the EV and thereby the volitility you would otherwise need to offset the loss at the low counts.
Lowering risk of ruin
- Thread starter Dopple
- Start date
non-self-weighter
Well-Known Member
Try a savings account or CD.Dopple said:
1357111317
Well-Known Member
He has a very good point. If you want safe and secure do not play blackjack.non-self-weighter said:
ah...craps
Member
That's only 20 units...swings like that are going to be more typical then you would like...unless it's a positive 20 unit swing, :grin:.
zengrifter
Banned
Yes. zgDopple said:
daddybo
Well-Known Member
less avg spread = less volatility.
tighter spreads will reduce bankroll fluctuations... just make sure your playing a decent game that can be beat with narrower spreads. I do this from time to time on those days when your just not winning when you should be..(dealers from hell, bad variance, negative karma, etc.)Dopple said:
Last edited:
1357111317
Well-Known Member
the 1-20 has much lower fluctuation.Pro21 said:
If we were talking about a 5-100 vs a 5-50 the 5-50 would have much lower short term fluctuation but a much higher long term fluctuation (N0)
non-self-weighter
Well-Known Member
This is also extremely fuzzy thinking. You suggest that you are able to predict the immediate future. If you are able to determine that over a small sample, bad karma is impending regardless of the count, why don't you leave instead of reducing your max bet?daddybo said:
daddybo
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was mathmatically long run correct. Sometimes I can predict the short term future. Some times its good to play in neg variance situations. Reduced avg spreading will reduce your BR fluctuations in negative variance and - EV situations. So will not playing and flat betting.non-self-weighter said:
if you lose 10 hands in a row...with an average bet of $100. you lose $1000.
if you lose 10 hands in a row... with an average bet of $50. you lose $ 500.
If you were going back and forth slowly losing or winning you wouldn't even think about changing your spread.
if you've never lost 20 or so hands in a row (with good TC's)... you've not played enough.
Last edited:
I don't know.Pro21 said:
I'd guess in most multi-deck play-all games, the $50-$100 spread would have a lower unit variance per round, a higher $variance per round and a risk of 100% to one's roll since I don't think many multi-deck games play-all games will yield a +EV with a 1-2 unit spread.
The 1-20 spread with a $5 unit would have higher unit variance per round, lower $variance per round and astronomically lower risk to roll.
So i don't know whether people here, when they speak of "more variance" in their generalizations are speaking in terms of $'s or units.
Since the title of this thread was "lowering ROR", I get even more befuddled.
I can give you examples of smaller unit spreads, same max $spread but with larger unit spread, with larger $variances yet still same risk to same roll in same game.
Whatever lol.
It ain't $variance that matters, it's unit variance.
Fix the risk to your roll and go from there maybe lol.
iCountNTrack
Well-Known Member
To start with your question is irrelevant to what you have posted. And you will find out why i hope after reading the following. You also need to clear out of your head making big money quick, besides if you can't afford losing $500 playing i am afraid it is not a good idea for you to play.Dopple said:
Risk of ruin is the probability of your bankroll dropping to zero before reaching a desired level. There are only two ways to lower your risk of ruin: A) Play a better game (this includes house rules, betting and playing strategy) and B decreasing the size of your unit bet.
I have found over the years that it is much more convenient to have your win rate and standard deviation reported in betting units and not in dollar amount because for a given game these are invariable. It is also convenient to have your bankroll defined in terms of the number of betting units. Please note that the risk of ruin and short term swings (variance per round or hourly variance) are not the same thing, even though standard deviation is a variable in the equation to calculate ROR.
To clarify what is has been correctly mentioned, every time your total action increases because you are using a bigger bet spread or you are able to identify more advantageous situations, the standard deviation (in betting units) per hand would increase in but luckily so does your win rate per hand. It is also fortunate that win rate is proportional to the number of hands while the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of hands. For instance:
We have a 6D game where pen is 60% vs a 6D with all the same except pen is 90%, the 90% game we will see more high TC's i.e more advantageous situations:
For the 6D 90%, the win rate is 0.057 units/hand and the SD is 5.84 units/hand
For the 6D 60%, the win rate is 0.017 units/hand and the SD is 3.80 units/hand
After playing 20000 hands:
For the 90% game your expected winnings are 20000*0.057 ± sqrt(20000)*5.84 = 1140 ± 825 units
For the 60% game your expected winnings are 20000*0.017 ± sqrt(20000)*3.80 = 340 ± 537 units
The above shows that even though the short term swings for the 60% game is lower, you will get much faster into a positive zone where swings become irrelevant because you will still be ahead.
The whole idea is to have a bankroll that can withstand these short term fluctuations, because the honey is down the line.
I pretty much love everything you said - especially that stuff about bankroll defined in terms of units lol.iCountNTrack said:
All I wanted to say, if you want to compare surviving fluctuations in roll, maybe use 1 SD as a comparison rather than the same number of hands.
Like, maybe chances are, the 90% guy may have exceeded N0 10,000 hands ago and the 60% guy may not even be half way there yet lol.
It's unfair to compare the unit fluctuation after the same number of rounds played - the liklihoods of being that far ahead or behind after 20,000 rounds is no where near the same in both cases kinda thing.
Doesn't invalidate a single thing you said lol.
Not to mention the 90% guy could likely get by with alot fewer units in initial roll, spreading same x-y units in same everything lol, but increasing $unit to play at same initial risk to roll.