Re-evaluating your BR

[SleightOfHand]

I realize that if you constantly reevaluate your betting ramp so that you have a certain RoR (lets say 5%) for the BR at the time, you are going to bust in the long run. So my question is: When is a good time to re-evaluate my betting ramp to minimize this problem?

Or is my understanding of RoR incorrect?

 

[blackjack avenger]

ROR = Rags or Riches

If you have a 5% ror I am guessing you are using a fixed spread? You are betting the same thing over and over. Now that is your ror when you first start playing. If you double your bankroll your ror falls to .25% if you keep the same bets going forward.

On the negative side if you were to lose half your original bank and keep your bets the same from then on your ror is 22%.:joker::whip:

 

[EasyRhino]

Or is my understanding of RoR incorrect?

Incorrect.

Theoretically, you can adjust your bet spread with every hand you play, continuously. But if you adjust upward as well as downward (and as long as you don't bet double kelly) your theoretical ROR will be zero, although you'd have a chance of bankroll degrading down to a worthless level.

Practically, you just don't need to resize continuously. When my bankroll was going through a period of rapid inflation (oh so long ago) I resized max bets upward first to each new red chip, and then to each new green chip.

And also, if the bankroll grows to a larger level where you really start to sweat it, you may begin betting a smaller fraction just because, well, the potential losses might hurt too bad. So your bets might start growing slower, or even cap out where they are.

The other common approach is to set a betting schedule and leave it totally unchanged unless the BR reaches a predetermined level. I think the Ken Uston tactic was to stop at 50% and resize, or stop at 200% and break the bank and disburse to team members.

Note that when a bet spread is said to have a "5% ROR" it's talking about a fixed bet schedule ridden all the way down to the bottom.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Note that when a bet spread is said to have a "5% ROR" it's talking about a fixed bet schedule ridden all the way down to the bottom.

Haha yea. I was thinking about my question as I was driving to the casino and realized this little bit of info, which, I think, caused me to have my belief at the time.

Practically, you just don't need to resize continuously. When my bankroll was going through a period of rapid inflation (oh so long ago) I resized max bets upward first to each new red chip, and then to each new green chip.

I got CVBJ a month ago and CVCX a few weeks ago so resizing my bets every session is pretty simple now. Its amazing how before CVCX I thought I understood risk, bet sizing, and EV, but after using it, I am surprised how important properly calculating my betting ramp is. I can see why the most common reason counters fail is due to money management.

Thanks for the help!

-Sleight-

PS: CVCX claims that I can do a 1-10 spread $10 min at a 8D 80% pen S17 DAS LS with a BR of 3200 and only 6% RoR (HiLo Sweet 16 Fab 4). Is this acceptable or should I follow the general "max bet no more than 1% of BR" rule? I would think that a simulator is better than a general rule, but just in case :grin:

 

[EasyRhino]

PS: CVCX claims that I can do a 1-10 spread $10 min at a 8D 80% pen S17 DAS LS with a BR of 3200 and only 6% RoR (HiLo Sweet 16 Fab 4). Is this acceptable or should I follow the general "max bet no more than 1% of BR" rule? I would think that a simulator is better than a general rule, but just in case :grin:

a) Max bet depends on what count you make it at. you don't, theoretically, need to have a max bet. You could have a bet prepared for a TC of +14 if you encounter one. It would be slightly higher than the bet you'd made at TC +13.

b) You'll need to be wonging those shoes pretty substantially, too.

 

[Kasi]

Note that when a bet spread is said to have a "5% ROR" it's talking about a fixed bet schedule ridden all the way down to the bottom.

Or, maybe it's talking about a pure proprortional-betting Kelly bettor betting 0.66% of Kelly fraction 1. That also would be a 5% ROR?

 

[EasyRhino]

Or, maybe it's talking about a pure proprortional-betting Kelly bettor betting 0.66% of Kelly fraction 1. That also would be a 5% ROR?

No, they're talking about fixed bets (at least until a major resizing point is measured).

Continuous resizing wouldn't seem as practical for team play anyway, you may have a bunch of people in different venues at the same time with different chunks of the bankroll operating at once. Momentary changes could be very large. Operating a cell-phone call tree to tell people that they need to remove one chip from their bets would seem cumbersome.

 

[sagefr0g]

.....-Sleight-

PS: CVCX claims that I can do a 1-10 spread $10 min at a 8D 80% pen S17 DAS LS with a BR of 3200 and only 6% RoR (HiLo Sweet 16 Fab 4). Is this acceptable or should I follow the general "max bet no more than 1% of BR" rule? I would think that a simulator is better than a general rule, but just in case :grin:

that would be for wonging in and out at tc=1 right?
a canned sim i have for a full table gives around 6.7% ror .
play all the ror is around 46%
rather dramatic differance. lol.
funny the play all winrate is circa $19 while the wonging winrate is circa $12.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Chase You Down, I Take Your Milk Money

Or, maybe it's talking about a pure proprortional-betting Kelly bettor betting 0.66% of Kelly fraction 1. That also would be a 5% ROR?

I don't think so.
If you bet .66% continuous resizing Kelly your ror would be 0% just like betting full resizing Kelly. One's swings would be lower as well as the growth rate.

 

[SleightOfHand]

that would be for wonging in and out at tc=1 right?

a canned sim i have for a full table gives around 6.7% ror .
play all the ror is around 46%
rather dramatic differance. lol.

I know. I was very surprised what a difference wonging makes

funny the play all winrate is circa $19 while the wonging winrate is circa $12.

Is it cuz by wonging we are essentially playing at a lower pen?

-Sleight is the me-

 

[sagefr0g]

Is it cuz by wonging we are essentially playing at a lower pen?

-Sleight is the me-

maybe something to do with this sort of thing.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=99715&postcount=3

i think the ev for the play all was about 0.825 or so
and the ev for the wong situation was 1.99 or so
while the winrates and ROR's were as we had aforementioned.
kind of counter intuitive number-wise. or maybe goes along with the idea that taking risks is a part of the getting ahead game sort of idea.

 

[Kasi]

kind of counter intuitive number-wise. or maybe goes along with the idea that taking risks is a part of the getting ahead game sort of idea.

I'd guess that's it in a nutshell. Risk vs reward.

Bet $3200 with a 1-10 spread never playing less than TC+1 at a 46% ROR and you win alot more. I guess your $10 unit won't be $10 anymore.

Bet $3200 at 1-10 in play-all with a 6% ROR. I guess your unit won't be $10 anymore either. Find a $1 table lol.

Both are 320 unit rolls.

When you want to compare games etc what's more important than keeping risk the same? Why would anyone want to subject roll to greatly different risks in the first place? If you like 50% ROR, then bet at that risk for any game you choose. If you like 5%, then do that. Neither is "wrong". If your roll etc doesn't even support the table min with whatever chosen risk, don't play that game in that way.

And, yes, absolutely, positively, throw that general, utterly meaningless, "1% of roll=max bet" out of your mind forever. A dead nymphomaniac would be equally useful to you. I hope anyway.