StandardDeviant said:
Ya don't need to know about the specific conditions of the game to advise that betting $500 a hand with a $6K bank roll is a bad idea.
Do you need to know them in order to state "Mr. M experienced a 8K loss in one week. That is a -3 standard deviations below EV."?
No big deal - I don't exactly know what he's doing either - just assumed a 4.5/6 S17 DAS (some table from Don's book - can't remeber now which one) with 1-8 playing-all spread with a 320 unit loss in 7000 hands representing 1 week of play.
Calling that -3 SD from EV just seems possibly way, way extreme to me but I don't know how you arrrived at that conclusion. So I was curious.
In the bigger picture, had he apparently not "spent" the $9K, he'd still have a $15K roll and, while perhaps less than EV, completely insignificant from a SD point-of-view.
So, perhaps, a very good BJ player but, perhaps, merely a bad manager of one's roll who made the decision to spend the winnings every time he made some.
That very well could be the only mistake he has made. And, I'd say, it's a pretty big one lol. What do you think?
Had he only said at the beginning "I'm only up $1k with a starting roll of $14K after 6 months and one week of play spreading 1-8 with a $25 unit", I'm pretty sure everyone would say "no worries, no problem, hang in there".
Nothing can change the fact the guy is apparently up 40 units after 6 months and 1 week of play.
Also, spreading 1-8 with $25 unit and $14K roll is 560 unit roll. Spreading 1-8 with $10 unit and $6k roll is 600 units. The difference maybe does not deserve the moniker of "overbetting" with the former and "a little undercapitalized" with the other. The ROR maybe wouldn't change substantially either way, don't you think?
Just hoping to figure out more exactly what you may have based this -3SD stuff on since it seems extreme to me lol.
No big deal.