some how that just doesn't make me feel that warm and fuzzy. call me a skeptic, lol but you can bet i'll still look for some nice low ROR in my considerations, just in case, lmao. but i'll go beyond that as well, using my sense of security, intuition and thoughts and judgements regarding the question.
ok but so, how come the authors and experts say this bankroll, it's gotta be discretionary kind of money, money you can afford to lose, all of it? doesn't that mean, no big deal you lost it? here is Snyder on the subject pg 136 Blackbelt in Blackjack:
"Personally i'm not crazy about the idea of individual players determining their bet sizes soley based on Risk of Ruin. Uston discussed how some of the teams he was involved in based their bets on a 5% element of ruin. This sounds pretty good to most players; if you double your bank 95% of the time (19 out of 20 banks double) that a huge win expectation in the long run.
But Uston was involved in big teams of players, with multiple investors, and if the team went broke on a play, the inverstors could simply put together another bank and do it again. That's not an option easily available to a solo player. If you have a bank of $10,000, and lose the whole bank on your first play, can you simply put together another $10,000 and do it again? You might argue that it's unlikely that you'll lose your bank on your first attempt to double it, but consider it from the perspective as an author whose advice is being followed by thousands of individual players: For every ten thousand players who go out and play to a 5% ROR, 500 of them will go broke! How many of those players can quickly put together another bank? How many have lost their life savings? How many will write nasty letters to me blaming me for thier new poverty?"
here's Wong on the subject, Professional Blackjack pg 193:
Bankroll Advice
First decide how much money you are willing to risk at blackjack. By that i mean the amount if you lost it all you would give up the game. That is you total stake for the purposes of this discussion.......
pg 205
....You must be cold and calculating. Steely blue eyes will do. You must have no emotional attachemnt to that money you throw on the table. It must mean little to you. If you lose it so what; it's only money. If you cannot afford to lose it, you cannot afford to bet it....
so why do these authors say this stuff? me, i think they say it cause they darn well know their readers can easily and will often (more often than the odds) lose their money.
just my point is that risk is real, very, very, very, .... real. and take it from Bojack, or even moi, take a real hard, close look, put some numbers on that play action and results compare expectations from theory and let anyone determine just how skilled they might really be.
lmao, like i said you probably got a million of them.
ok but so, how come the authors and experts say this bankroll, it's gotta be discretionary kind of money, money you can afford to lose, all of it? doesn't that mean, no big deal you lost it? here is Snyder on the subject pg 136 Blackbelt in Blackjack:
"Personally i'm not crazy about the idea of individual players determining their bet sizes soley based on Risk of Ruin. Uston discussed how some of the teams he was involved in based their bets on a 5% element of ruin. This sounds pretty good to most players; if you double your bank 95% of the time (19 out of 20 banks double) that a huge win expectation in the long run.
But Uston was involved in big teams of players, with multiple investors, and if the team went broke on a play, the inverstors could simply put together another bank and do it again. That's not an option easily available to a solo player. If you have a bank of $10,000, and lose the whole bank on your first play, can you simply put together another $10,000 and do it again? You might argue that it's unlikely that you'll lose your bank on your first attempt to double it, but consider it from the perspective as an author whose advice is being followed by thousands of individual players: For every ten thousand players who go out and play to a 5% ROR, 500 of them will go broke! How many of those players can quickly put together another bank? How many have lost their life savings? How many will write nasty letters to me blaming me for thier new poverty?"
here's Wong on the subject, Professional Blackjack pg 193:
Bankroll Advice
First decide how much money you are willing to risk at blackjack. By that i mean the amount if you lost it all you would give up the game. That is you total stake for the purposes of this discussion.......
pg 205
....You must be cold and calculating. Steely blue eyes will do. You must have no emotional attachemnt to that money you throw on the table. It must mean little to you. If you lose it so what; it's only money. If you cannot afford to lose it, you cannot afford to bet it....
so why do these authors say this stuff? me, i think they say it cause they darn well know their readers can easily and will often (more often than the odds) lose their money.
just my point is that risk is real, very, very, very, .... real. and take it from Bojack, or even moi, take a real hard, close look, put some numbers on that play action and results compare expectations from theory and let anyone determine just how skilled they might really be.
lmao, like i said you probably got a million of them.
