Making a run with high ROR

[vneck]

Looking to make a run at part time AP. Most AP's say they never play with a ROR above 2%. This seems nearly impossible unless you already have a substantial bankroll (which I do not)

My small bankroll is expendable and I have a steady source of income from which I can add $$ to my bankroll every month. The plan is to make a run at surviving my high ROR (embarrassingly high) while adding $$ to my bankroll incrementally. If I lose that bankroll, I'll move on... No major damage. If I survive and get to a point where I have an acceptable ROR I'll start increasing my spread to actually generate some real EV.

Looking for any success stories from folks with a similar start who survived an initially high ROR and went on to a successful AP career.

 

[LV Bear]

Why not build up the bankroll to a reasonable amount from your steady source of income before trying this? Casinos will still be there. What you described is essentially just gambling, not advantage play.

 

[vneck]

Is the general recommendation to wait until you have a bankroll large enough to reduce ROR to under 2%?

 

[DSchles]

It doesn't have to be under 2%. But nor should it be "embarrassingly high." You can put LV Bear's suggestion into practice by finding a happy medium between the two.

Don

 

[London Colin]

I vaguely recall reading a formal treatment of this kind of idea - I.e. how to account for a 'replenishable bankroll' in your RoR calculations. Could it have been in your book, Don?

The basic idea being that ruin never truly comes if your bankroll is topped up once a month, so you can to some degree factor your future income into a notional 'current' bankroll.

In operation, there is a analogy with the idea of a 'trip' bankroll. You don't want to be betting at such a high risk level that you frequently have to quit (or drastically reduce your stakes) and wait for your next pay check(s) before you can start again. (Just as on a trip you don't want to run out of money way before you are due to head home.)

 

[vneck]

That is what I'm attempting. My initial bankroll is small but I've started adding to it regularly from my weekly expendable spending money and from winning (I've experienced very positive variance in my first 20 hours at the tables and my AV is far exceeding my EV).

My initial ROR was 37%. (I know I know) But I was having fun using the skills I've been practicing for so long in a live game.
After 20 hours I was able to almost double my bankroll (from winning and saving) and I'm currently just under 20% ROR . I was excited about working towards getting it down toward 10% over the next month or so but I'm getting discouraged constantly reading and listening to AP's who are using the less than 2% rule and who advise that it's insane to even play at anything beyond that. I'm hoping that if I can work towards that 10% and keep slowly lowering it, I can find that "happy medium" Don is talking about and make this a long term thing instead of just hanging it up now cuz I'm not under 2%. I guess that's the gamble... Will I survive long enough to get to that 2%. We'll see.

I appreciate the feedback. This forum is great!

 

[London Colin]

But my point was it doesn't have to all be so ad hoc.

There is, I think, a formula for RoR (or something broadly analogous to RoR) that factors in the amount of disposable income you are prepared to add to your bankroll each month.

You expect your bankroll to grow at a rate that reflects both the EV from your play and the fixed rate of growth from your income. And the latter 'softens the blow' of the downswings in luck that you will inevitably experience.

But it still ought to be a case of plugging in all the relevant numbers and sizing your bets so that the answer the formula spits out is one you personally are comfortable with.

 

[London Colin]

It occurs to me that references to RoR may not be that helpful. Perhaps a better way to think about it is this -

With a fixed bankroll, there is a sweet spot, the Kelly Criterion, for your bet sizing; but most generally bet less than this to reduce RoR. If instead you bet more, not only do you hurt your EV, you eventually turn it negative. (at 2 * Kelly??)

So I think with a replenishable bankroll there must still be an optimal bet size and an upper limit beyond which you are no longer playing with an advantage. (You can, after all, estimate how many years you expect to live/work/play, and thus the total bankroll you will eventually have saved from your earnings. Call this amount your 'current' bankroll and that gives you the basis for an undeniable upper limit!)

 

[vneck]

I'm using cvcx to determine bet size and focusing on keeping RoR as low as possible. It's interesting you mentioned the sweet spot. I was surprised to see that risk goes up when I'm betting too low a well as too high. I assumed, the lower my big bet the less chance I would ruin.

I like the notion of a replenishable bankroll but there must be some limit to the forward looking bankroll right? If I can safely put aside 500/month can I just add 6000 to my bankroll for the year? In 5 years that would be 30k... But I know I can't play a game based on that bankroll right now, so what is an optimal amount of months to assume into my future bankroll?

 

[London Colin]

I don't know how to calculate the optimal amount. My first post was to mention that I thought I had read something somewhere on this very topic. I'm nowhere near being an expert in these matters, just a curious bystander. The actual experts, such as Don may be able give more detail.

For what it's worth, I think the approach I saw may have been to calculate an increased figure for your current bankroll, the 'notional' bankroll I mentioned earlier, and use that as the basis for your RoR calculations, setting exactly the same target percentage you would if you were working with a fixed bankroll.

Like you say, I'm sure the approach would not be just to add up all you anticipated future earnings; it would involve some function of that amount

As I see it, there are two big reasons to be wary of overbetting -
1. Bet too much and you do not have a long-term advantage.
2. Bet too much, and each time you have to stop until your bankroll is replenished you miss out on the EV of all the play that you are not now doing. (So your EV as a percentage is being applied to less total action, meaning less EV in dollar terms.)

 

[DSchles]

Just a brief word or two. The problem with all these calculations is that they're all based on continuous functions, and blackjack is a game of discrete wagers. You really can't apply the formulas rigorously. It isn't practical to resize your optimal wagers, according to Kelly, after every hour you play, and you can't bet the odd amounts suggested by the formula, in any event..

What you'd want, in theory, to add to today's BR, is the present value of the future stream of income you have. It's the same principle as to how lottery winners get paid lump sums today that are only about 50%-60% of the actual cash prize.

Vneck, I can't possibly caution you more strongly about your "plans" for when the 37% ROR goes to 20% and then 10% and then 2%, as if all mapped out smoothly for you. Shit happens! It isn't going to work like that, although I certainly wish you good luck.

Don

 

[vneck]

Thanks guys.