ROR, Risk or Reward?

[blackjack avenger]

Another Wise Choice

Charisma, yeah that comes naturally. Intelligence!!?? to use halves? Here is what I have to say about halves. Many, many moons ago I got a beautiful black book with gold writing on the cover. SW authored it. He has two systems in it and I had to pick one. Halves required the same amount of memorizing from tables. The same efficiency with insurance decisions. Halves is a tad more difficult to count but adds .1 bets per hour. At this point it seemed trivial. Each system with an additional count per deck gives an extra .56% advantage BUT hi-lo has a standard deviation of .22%. Halves only .06%!!! THAT sold me. Halves makes almost NO errors in estimating advantage. The numbers are also relatively SMALL and that is much easier for me to count. I can say in my mind "and a half" without any problem as needed, easy!! For me, yes, an intelligent choice.

I have the same little book, what sold me was WINNING MORE:laugh:

I remember the line about "almost no errors in estimating advantage". I need to remember that line when someone challenges Halves! Not that I am biased, not at all!

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[gamblingghost]

I have the same little book, what sold me was WINNING MORE:laugh:

I remember the line about "almost no errors in estimating advantage". I need to remember that line when someone challenges Halves! Not that I am biased, not at all!

good cards
:joker::whip:

What they will say is that the slight errors in counting that you will make because it is 'so difficult' will more than off set the advantage. What I say is
that I can count down two decks as fast as you can flip the cards perfectly time and again. So what is the complaint about that!?

 

[blackjack avenger]

8th is More Then 10th

if i go to 1/8 in cvcx, errh my spread doesn't change, it stays the same as 0.333 .....

Perhaps cvcx only defaults to .333 and no lower. Is Norm making a statement that is safe enough? Yes, from total wipeout in theory. 1/3 kelly resizing still has VARIANCE.:whip: and a chance to lose half of bank:whip:

All one needs to do is set cvcx to 13.53% kelly ror and realize you need 8 times the $ to avoid losing half of your bank.

errhh, at some point resizing downward is a no go, no?:whip:

Perhaps I am also saying 1/8th kelly resizing is as safe as one needs to be. If you refuse to resize down your total ror is 13.53 to whatever power (kelly bank) you wish. Keeping with the chances of losing half. So 1/8th kelly not resizing losing half the bank is the same as losing a 1/4 kelly not reszing bank or .1353^4=.03% chance of losing half your bank. It's small but if it happens are you lowering stakes down to NO HELL:sad::whip: Our finite lives will feel like infinity Hell:sad::whip: as you try to get back to even!

In brief, not resizing down raises the chances of a large drawdown and ror. One wants to avoid large drawdowns and the forced drastic resizing by betting 1/8th kelly resizing.

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[aslan]

Perhaps cvcx only defaults to .333 and no lower. Is Norm making a statement that is safe enough? Yes, from total wipeout in theory. 1/3 kelly resizing still has VARIANCE.:whip: and a chance to lose half of bank:whip:

All one needs to do is set cvcx to 13.53% kelly ror and realize you need 8 times the $ to avoid losing half of your bank.



Perhaps I am also saying 1/8th kelly resizing is as safe as one needs to be. If you refuse to resize down your total ror is 13.53 to whatever power (kelly bank) you wish. Keeping with the chances of losing half. So 1/8th kelly not resizing losing half the bank is the same as losing a 1/4 kelly not reszing bank or .1353^4=.03% chance of losing half your bank. It's small but if it happens are you lowering stakes down to NO HELL:sad::whip: Our finite lives will feel like infinity Hell:sad::whip: as you try to get back to even!

In brief, not resizing down raises the chances of a large drawdown and ror. One wants to avoid large drawdowns and the forced drastic resizing by betting 1/8th kelly resizing.

good cards
:joker::whip:

For us dummies, could you give us a scenario for a $10 game. How much should our bankroll be? How much should our min and max bets be? How much wonging is required to keep the 1/8 Kelly doing its magic? How often should we resize on the downhill; ie, what are the trigger points? How often should we resize on the uphill; ie, what are the trigger points? And whatever else you want to tell us about the practical considerations you run into following 1/8 Kelly.

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Did Not Call Anyone a Dummy

could you give us a scenario for a $10 game. How much should our bankroll be?

If you are satisfied with your win rate and want to maintain it, one should consider 1/8th kelly or 8 kelly banks (13.53% ror)

How much should our min and max bets be?

I like an optimum bet ramp, but a winning spread will do. It's not really about bet ramps, but the fraction of bank one bets

How much wonging is required to keep the 1/8 Kelly doing its magic?

Again, not about bet ramps, it would work no matter your style. 1/6th kelly would work if you play perfectly and can instantly resize your bets down on losses. 1/7th may have enough fudge factor, but 8th kelly is the symbol for infinite standing straight up!

How often should we resize on the downhill; ie, what are the trigger points? How often should we resize on the uphill; ie, what are the trigger points?

This is where 8th kelly shows some power, as long as you resize at some points you will be fine. The more frequent you resize down on losses the less likely you are to experince large drawdowns. I mentioned playing between 1/6th and 1/8th and resizing between those barriers. If losing half bank is an issue resize down on losses frequently.

And whatever else you want to tell us about the practical considerations you run into following 1/8 Kelly.

One of the big positives is one can relax; you have arrived, variance is no longer a threat. One has a lot of room for random, rare errors. It takes into consideration real world elements that can hurt our ror.

What probably causes most aspiring APs to fail? ror or large drawdown.
What do most pro's probably possess? Near 0% ror or risk of large drawdown.
What is a common complaint? variance

1/8th kelly addresses these issues. It slows down rate of growth but delivers certainty of growth and preservation of bank and the ability to play in spite of variance.

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[blackjack avenger]

The Small Bank & 1/8th Kelly, Answer is Growth

How can a small bank employ 1/8th kelly? They can't place a bet!

Example:
A player has a 20g bank that he is playing at 1/2 kelly, so a 10g bet ramp. He is happy because he is making more then twice his job wage. However, he is still a potential victim of negative variance and could have a large drawdown. What to do?

Don't raise stakes on wins, let the bank grow to 80g which would be 1/8th kelly. From this point forward he can raise stakes without fear of variance knocking him out of the game. He should still lower bets on losses if he values bank or half bank preservation.

The above is in step with investment theory, as his bank grows he is becoming more conservative.

So with a small bank; don't raise stakes, let it grow until you get to 1/8th kelly. Then raise and lower stakes with no worry of variance.

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[blackjack avenger]

Half A##ed Bank Assessment

Take a look at your current betting ror. What is your risk of losing half? If losing half is a big problem then the only way around it is to let your bank grow until your at 1/8th kelly, then half your bank is safe. More so if you resize down on losses frequently.

:joker::whip:
good cards

For skeptics if you play long enough and win enough you will be slowed down by table max's. One will reach 1/8th kelly by default. Of course with 1/8th kelly one has a better chance of reaching table max's.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Resizing Grows to Fixed

errhh, at some point resizing downward is a no go, no?:whip:

At 1/8 kelly if one chooses they can decide to never resize downward, but they face a ror and risk of drawdown, though small.

If one chooses 1/8 kelly resizing it is practically not resizing down at all. One would have to lose a significant amount of bank before resizing bets down would be practical.

As the bank continues to grow with table max constraints it gets to the point where even with a large bank drawdown one is still able to make table max bets.

On wins one is able to make table max bets at lower and lower TCs.

In brief:
With bank growth and table max constraints a resizing bank becomes fixed.

Easy example:
$250,000 bank
100 max bet game
One can call it 1/8 kelly resizing bank, but it's very doubtful you will ever lose so much that you need to resize bets.

 

[aslan]

At 1/8 kelly if one chooses they can decide to never resize downward, but they face a ror and risk of drawdown, though small.

If one chooses 1/8 kelly resizing it is practically not resizing down at all. One would have to lose a significant amount of bank before resizing bets down would be practical.

As the bank continues to grow with table max constraints it gets to the point where even with a large bank drawdown one is still able to make table max bets.

On wins one is able to make table max bets at lower and lower TCs.

In brief:
With bank growth and table max constraints a resizing bank becomes fixed.

Easy example:
$250,000 bank
100 max bet game
One can call it 1/8 kelly resizing bank, but it's very doubtful you will ever lose so much that you need to resize bets.

One size fits all! :grin:

Hey! And with that much bankroll, you can keep the bulk of it invested earning interest! :grin::grin:

 

[ycming]

So does playing 1/8 kelly means having a 13% ROR ??

And with 1/8 kelly, your max bet is 0.04% of your BR?

Thanks
Ming

 

[blackjack avenger]

8 on it's Side is Infinity

So does playing 1/8 kelly means having a 13% ROR ??

And with 1/8 kelly, your max bet is 0.04% of your BR?

Thanks
Ming

No, it's a 13.35% ror, but 8 times the funds.

 

[ycming]

No, it's a 13.35% ror, but 8 times the funds.

Ermm your ROR considers the size of your BR tho ?

Ming

 

[aslan]

so does playing 1/8 kelly means having a 13% ror ??

And with 1/8 kelly, your max bet is 0.04% of your br?

Thanks
ming

RoR is nada
0.125%

 

[ycming]

RoR is nada
0.125%

Hmmmm

Easy example:
$250,000 bank
100 max bet game
One can call it 1/8 kelly resizing bank, but it's very doubtful you will ever lose so much that you need to resize bets.

100/250000 * 100 = 0.04 ?

Man am well confused lol.

Ming

 

[blackjack avenger]

If the Shoe Fits, Wear it

One size fits all! :grin:

Hey! And with that much bankroll, you can keep the bulk of it invested earning interest! :grin::grin:

Yes, one can keep the bank not being used in liquid investments. I don't think silver would work! A quick turn around sale would probably incur a loss

Now buying canned food for storage would work, because the money you save in the near term; due to bulk discounts, would come back as you eat the stores.:grin: An investment that if goes south you can actually eat it!

I can't think of many investments where you can receive an immediate 10% return, food bulk discount.

I think the Tommy Hyland team used(s) 1/8 kelly? Why not take on the attribues of perhaps the most successful? The more conservative the betting the increased chance of success and of actually WINNING

1/8 kelly is just as subjective as kelly.

Why do we talk of RORs when they don't have to exist?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Keep it Simple

Hmmmm

Easy example:
$250,000 bank
100 max bet game
One can call it 1/8 kelly resizing bank, but it's very doubtful you will ever lose so much that you need to resize bets.

Don't overthink. I did not specify a game so you don't know the acutal ror. The point was that large banks can overwhelm risk of drawdown. So even if one intends to lower bets on losses, you won't lose enough for it to happen

 

[aslan]

Why do we talk of RORs when they don't have to exist?

Could it be that most of us don't have an extra $100,000 to dedicate as our gambling bankroll?

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Like Keeping My Money

View attachment 7441 Could it be that most of us don't have an extra $100,000 to dedicate as our gambling bankroll?

Probably top reasons of AP failure? Loss of bank or inability to tolerate large drawdowns

How many posts and threads are lamenting losses?

There is only 1 defense against loss of bank and drawdowns, bet very conservatively.

If anyone goes back and reads my posts in this thread I address smaller banks and when to begin to think of becoming very conservative.

 

[aslan]

Hmmmm

Easy example:
$250,000 bank
100 max bet game
One can call it 1/8 kelly resizing bank, but it's very doubtful you will ever lose so much that you need to resize bets.

100/250000 * 100 = 0.04 ?

Man am well confused lol.

Ming

I'm no math person, but I think it goes like this:

I use 1% as a rule of thumb full kelly approximation of the ratio of max bet to bankroll. It can be accurately figured by dividing your advantage of 2% by the variance for the particular game rules your are playing. So, if you are playing 1/8 kelly, you only need 1/8 of 1%, but that means a huge bankroll for even a $25 minimum game. Using your figures and a $25 min game:

.00125 * 250,000 = $312.50 max bet which would allow you to spread 1 to 12.

or another way to look at it: $250,000 / 8 = $31,250 * 1% = $312.50 max bet

Is this right, blackjack avenger?

 

[aslan]

Probably top reasons of AP failure? Loss of bank or inability to tolerate large drawdowns

How many posts and threads are lamenting losses?

There is only 1 defense against loss of bank and drawdowns, bet very conservatively.

If anyone goes back and reads my posts in this thread I address smaller banks and when to begin to think of becoming very conservative.

Absolutely the bane of AP play! But, until you build your br to such a level that you can play 1/8 kelly, you need to risk the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.