Spreading and bankroll

[1357111317]

Now from reading this site for the past little while it is my understanding that you want to have a 100 max bet bankroll. So if you are spreading 5 to 50 you would need a 5k bankroll. Now my question is if you had 3 players all sharing that 5k bankroll who were sitting beside each other and all spreading 5 to 50 would you still be able to use a 5k bankroll or would you need a 15k bankroll ( 50x3 = max bet. Also lets just choose to ignore the fact that this could draw a substantial amount of heat, I am just wondering about the math aspect of it.)

 

[rollem411]

I am assuming you all would be playing separate tables, because there is no point in having 3 counters on the same team playing the same table with the same spread. The point of team play is for cover purposes and to reach the long run faster. If you are all playing the same table, you won't be getting there like you should be having 3 members of a team.

Again, with the assumptions of you playing separately and using the same method I think using a 5K bankroll would be fine. If all 3 of you are playing different tables with a 5K bankroll combinded, you can view it as 1 person that has played 3 tables in a session.

Now if factors such as win rate and standard deviation differ from player to player assuming it is the person affecting the results and not the game itself than you would have to assess your bankroll differently.

Not exactly sure if this would be true, so i'd wait for a backup opinion.

 

[jaredmt]

he said they are sitting beside each other. thats no different than 1 person spreading to 3 hands. that means you'll be overbetting if all 3 are betting the full amount at the same table.

but i agree with rollem, it should help increase hands/hr and decrease variance a little if you play at different tables. its less likely that all 3 of you will hit negative variances at the same time, even though its still possible.

but thats based on what i've read, im no expert either so probably another backup opinion would be good lol

 

[1357111317]

Well I probably should have put this in the advance techniques forum but my question had to do with the spreading and bankroll aspect of it and less of the actualy AP side of it. Lets say these card counters had to sit at the same table for some unforseen reason. And they all spread 5-50. Now can you look at this as a single AP playing 3 times as fast or do you look at it like a single AP playing a 15-150 spread?

 

[rukus]

Well I probably should have put this in the advance techniques forum but my question had to do with the spreading and bankroll aspect of it and less of the actualy AP side of it. Lets say these card counters had to sit at the same table for some unforseen reason. And they all spread 5-50. Now can you look at this as a single AP playing 3 times as fast or do you look at it like a single AP playing a 15-150 spread?

the later, ie a single counter. but for bankroll sizing purposes, you can look at it as a single counter playing about 10-100.

 

[matt21]

Well I probably should have put this in the advance techniques forum but my question had to do with the spreading and bankroll aspect of it and less of the actualy AP side of it. Lets say these card counters had to sit at the same table for some unforseen reason. And they all spread 5-50. Now can you look at this as a single AP playing 3 times as fast or do you look at it like a single AP playing a 15-150 spread?

Bankroll questions aside, three counters sitting beside each other is a really bad idea. You will all be varying your bet sizes in tandem - that's just going to look too obvious DONT DO IT!!

Earlier comments on this thread are correct though - if you are all sitting at the same table then you are overbetting. like it was said earlier, it would be just as if you were spreading to 3 hands at the max +ve count i.e. instead of betting 50 you would be betting 3x50 - this is going to create less variance than if you are betting 1x150 - but nevertheless it would cause a significant increase in your ROR (risk of ruin).

Do you need a bigger bankroll if 3 people are playing simultaneously but at different tables? Yes in some way it is like one player playing three sessions -however since you will all be playing at the same time it is possible that all three of you hit happen to hit a losing streak - if so you may all need to adjust your bet ramp (just as you would ahve to do if you have 3 significant losing streaks in succession). If the 3 of you would be playing in succession, then there would certainly be no need for an increase in BR. But I would think that since you are playing simultaneously you will need to increase your BR. I dont know how to calculate as to how much you should increase it.

To be honest if your BR is only $5k then you should just play for fun. Best case scenario you are going to make $7.50 each per hour . But if you are going to use this as pratice for when you have a $25k bankroll, then that's a good idea (that's what i did!).

If you are restricted to playing one table - why not have two of you flat-betting and counting, and one of you getting really drunk and drunkenly betting $30 behind each of the two guys playing when the count is good?

 

[1357111317]

Bankroll questions aside, three counters sitting beside each other is a really bad idea. You will all be varying your bet sizes in tandem - that's just going to look too obvious DONT DO IT!!

Earlier comments on this thread are correct though - if you are all sitting at the same table then you are overbetting. like it was said earlier, it would be just as if you were spreading to 3 hands at the max +ve count i.e. instead of betting 50 you would be betting 3x50 - this is going to create less variance than if you are betting 1x150 - but nevertheless it would cause a significant increase in your ROR (risk of ruin).

Do you need a bigger bankroll if 3 people are playing simultaneously but at different tables? Yes in some way it is like one player playing three sessions -however since you will all be playing at the same time it is possible that all three of you hit happen to hit a losing streak - if so you may all need to adjust your bet ramp (just as you would ahve to do if you have 3 significant losing streaks in succession). If the 3 of you would be playing in succession, then there would certainly be no need for an increase in BR. But I would think that since you are playing simultaneously you will need to increase your BR. I dont know how to calculate as to how much you should increase it.

To be honest if your BR is only $5k then you should just play for fun. Best case scenario you are going to make $7.50 each per hour . But if you are going to use this as pratice for when you have a $25k bankroll, then that's a good idea (that's what i did!).

If you are restricted to playing one table - why not have two of you flat-betting and counting, and one of you getting really drunk and drunkenly betting $30 behind each of the two guys playing when the count is good?

Yeah don't worry I know how bad having 3 counters at the same would be, I am just using it as an example to understand bankroll side of things. But you are right about the bankroll, I mostly want to get into it now so when we get a bit more money we already know what we are doing. What kind of bankroll would you anticipate needing playing 3 hands of 5-50?

 

[rukus]

Yeah don't worry I know how bad having 3 counters at the same would be, I am just using it as an example to understand bankroll side of things. But you are right about the bankroll, I mostly want to get into it now so when we get a bit more money we already know what we are doing. What kind of bankroll would you anticipate needing playing 3 hands of 5-50?

7-10k depending on game rules, conditions, and your plan of attack. yes, im breaking everyone's beloved "100 max bet" rule of thumb because it's just that, a rule of thumb not a strict guideline.

 

[moo321]

Just put your 3 counters on 3 different tables. And I hope you're not spreading 1-10 on a 6 deck game, because that's really not enough.

 

[rukus]

Just put your 3 counters on 3 different tables. And I hope you're not spreading 1-10 on a 6 deck game, because that's really not enough.

perfectly acceptable with wonging or with some advanced techniques as he is alluding to.

 

[matt21]

7-10k depending on game rules, conditions, and your plan of attack. yes, im breaking everyone's beloved "100 max bet" rule of thumb because it's just that, a rule of thumb not a strict guideline.

Without being able to calculate it, i would say 7-10k sounds like a reasonable suggestion.

 

[Kasi]

Lets say these card counters had to sit at the same table for some unforseen reason. And they all spread 5-50. Now can you look at this as a single AP playing 3 times as fast or do you look at it like a single AP playing a 15-150 spread?

I'd look at is a single player with a 1-10 (5-50) spread spreading to 3 hands all the time.

And radically increasing the ROR he originally calculated at a 5-50 spread.

If he were a single guy spreading 15-150 but chose to spread like this, he also would be changing his ROR but in this case reducing it. Maybe? lol?

 

[Kasi]

Now if factors such as win rate and standard deviation differ from player to player assuming it is the person affecting the results and not the game itself than you would have to assess your bankroll differently.

If the 3 players are playing the same game the same way at different tables, win rate and stan dev are the same for each round played. You just get the benefit of more hands played per hour.

If it's the person effecting results, assess your personnel differently, not your roll.

 

[1357111317]

Wouldn't playing 3 hands at one table be greatly reducing your varience though? And also keep in mind I am using some other advanced techniques which are more powerful than counting. Would that allow me to have a smaller bankroll than would be required for counting?

 

[rollem411]

Wouldn't playing 3 hands at one table be greatly reducing your varience though? And also keep in mind I am using some other advanced techniques which are more powerful than counting. Would that allow me to have a smaller bankroll than would be required for counting?

In order to successfully spread to 3 hands and have a lower variance you would have to use about $25 a hand...pretty much 45% of your regualr max bet of one hand.

You would be severely overbetting if you used $50 a hand...this is only card counting though. If you are using advanced techniques, your bankroll has to do with your personal skill level as well as funding for negative streaks. To determine a BR for using both techniques is not my department though.

 

[Kasi]

Wouldn't playing 3 hands at one table be greatly reducing your varience though?

It could reduce it, keep it the same, or increase it compared to playing just 1 hand. Depends how much you bet. The idea would be to keep the variance the same so either method has the same risk to your roll. Spreading to 3 hands and betting the correct amounts allows you to keep the variance the same but have higher EV because more money is out there.

If you like the risk (say it is reduced) associated with spreading to 3 hands, then why not see how 1 player would have to spread with the same roll to keep the risk the same?

Why compare different ways of betting with such widely varying risk to your roll? Why not compare different ways of betting keeping your risk the same? It's more apples to apples that way, imho lol.

Let's face it, I'm guessing you don't even know the risk in the simplest case - a 5-50 spread with a $5K roll in whatever game you have in mind. Start there maybe before you get fancy lol. Then do the math for the spreading stuff if you want lol.

Or buy a sim and let it tell you lol.

 

[FLASH1296]

As a simplified figure - 200 times your minimum bet is a good Two or Three Day "Trip Bankroll" (for perhaps 1000 hands to play) to have for 8 deck games. 175 units suffices in 6 deck games, 150 for 4 decks and 125 for 2 decks.

 

[1357111317]

It could reduce it, keep it the same, or increase it compared to playing just 1 hand. Depends how much you bet. The idea would be to keep the variance the same so either method has the same risk to your roll. Spreading to 3 hands and betting the correct amounts allows you to keep the variance the same but have higher EV because more money is out there.

If you like the risk (say it is reduced) associated with spreading to 3 hands, then why not see how 1 player would have to spread with the same roll to keep the risk the same?

Why compare different ways of betting with such widely varying risk to your roll? Why not compare different ways of betting keeping your risk the same? It's more apples to apples that way, imho lol.

Let's face it, I'm guessing you don't even know the risk in the simplest case - a 5-50 spread with a $5K roll in whatever game you have in mind. Start there maybe before you get fancy lol. Then do the math for the spreading stuff if you want lol.

Or buy a sim and let it tell you lol.

Well I have read that if you have a 1000 unit bankroll and play a 1 - 10 spread your ror is around 2 %? Is that close or did I misunderstand something?

 

[FLASH1296]

2% r.o.r.

Your actual R.O.R. is a complicated matter with a bunch of variables to juggle; BUT if you want a very approximate "Ball Park Figure" here you are:

If you play Hi-Lo with the "Illustrious 18" basic strategy deviations and your bet-sizing is sharp and you make NO mistakes, and you spread 10 -1 in an 8 decker with S17 DA2 DAS 75% penetration - and you have 400 units of bank your R.O.R. will be about 39%
If you double your bankroll to 800 units the R O R will drop to about 16%.
At 1,000 units your R.O.R. will be about 11%

That 11% means that you have a 1 in 9 chances of (eventually) LOSING your bankroll before you DOUBLE your bankroll if you play until either result is obtained. Eight to One Odds that equates to. For some people, myself included, that is acceptable. For others, who do not have a lot of discretionary funds, or readily available resources that they can tap in order to replenish their bankroll -- it is disturbingly stressful to contemplate and the tension will effect their play in destructive ways.

Have you ever heard the old chestnut - "Scared Money Never Wins." - there is a good measure of truth in that.

I hope that you understand what I have posted.
Read those figures again and again until they sink in. You'd need a huge Bankroll to have the 2% Risk of Ruin that you cited. Either that or a game with extremely deep penetration. The rules of the game are far less significant than depth of penetration, extent of bet spread, and accuracy of bet-ramping.

Have you studied "Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed." ?
You have no excuse for failing to own a copy, then wondering why you were so "unlucky" that your wallet is empty.

 

[1357111317]

And the fact that my game is a 6 decker would probably decrease the ror but the H 17 and no surrender would bring it back up to the sameish level i'm assuming?

So now that we have that statistic out there.. does anyone have any ideas how much the ROR is going to go up if you have three hands of 5-50 being spread?