Started with $14k Bankroll
- Thread starter Mr.M
- Start date
StandardDeviant
Well-Known Member
So you started with 14K, won 9K, spent it, and subsequently lost 8K, taking your BR down to 6K. Is that right?Mr.M said:
Your BR was too small to begin with for $25 bets. You should have ~100 times your max bet, which for you was $200. So you needed 20K to begin with to support $25 minimum bets and a 1:8 spread.
You are slightly undercapitalized at 6K for spreading 1:8 and $10 mins, IMHO, assuming a fixed BR. If you can add to your BR through periodic deposits, that will help.
Sorry to hear about the bad luck, Mr.M. Yes you should adjust your bet ramp as a result of your bankroll dropping from 14k to 6k.Mr.M said:
The other poster may also have a good point that you were overbetting your 14k roll - might be good for you to assess you risk of ruin for your $25 1-8 spread as well as for your intended bet ramp with a 6k roll.
Matt
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
Tough break there. Short answer, YES YES YES drop your bankroll and play like you only had $6k. You should have been adjusting your bet unit size every chance you got, or at least with "significant" changes to you BR size. Learn about "Kelly criterion" to understanding how to determine bet sizes. but it sounds like there are a lot of things you need to learn and understand.
I'm going to assume that you are playing 6D BJ because I can't see how else you got such a huge negative swing playing SD or DD. Nor how you could have a break even bankroll for so long. These are signs of a beginner playing strictly 6D, or signs of worse; a progression better, or just straight out gambler. But since you mentioned using 1-8 spread, I'll assume 6D beginner counter. If so, 1-8 is not enough to attack a 6D. I've never thoroughly tested it, but the consensus I hear is 1-12 is minimum. I personally use 1-20 and even that yields conservative results.
I'm going to assume that you are playing 6D BJ because I can't see how else you got such a huge negative swing playing SD or DD. Nor how you could have a break even bankroll for so long. These are signs of a beginner playing strictly 6D, or signs of worse; a progression better, or just straight out gambler. But since you mentioned using 1-8 spread, I'll assume 6D beginner counter. If so, 1-8 is not enough to attack a 6D. I've never thoroughly tested it, but the consensus I hear is 1-12 is minimum. I personally use 1-20 and even that yields conservative results.
StandardDeviant
Well-Known Member
All it takes is a negative deviation -- which can happen in any game SD up to 8D. The probability of this outcome is less than 0.13% -- pretty damn low, but not zero.Jack_Black said:
All it takes is a set of outcomes that result in breaking even -- which can happen in any game SD up to 8D. There is about a 45% probability of breaking even or losing money during one weekend of play.Jack_Black said:
I've tested it. You can get a positive EV of slightly under 1% with 1:8. This can be enough, depending on one's goals and bankroll.Jack_Black said:
1:20 yields an EV of around 1.4% -- at a standard deviation that is twice as high as at 1:8. The risk of ruin is ~65% for a 6K bankroll spread 1:20 with $25 minimum bets. It is ~15% for the same bankroll spread 1:8 with $10 minumum bets. Both situations are risky, but the 1:20 scenario couldn't be called conservative for a player with a small bankroll.Jack_Black said:
Want to watch your bankroll disappear? Place a few $500 bets with a 6K bank. Throw in a few double downs or splits and you could be wiped out with one "good" shoe.
creeping panther
Banned
Tell us all about the game you are playing, please. What count? Indice play?Mr.M said:
AS has been mentioned by CAA and Pro21 and a few others, they do not even view straight counting as Advantage Play.
What are the table limits at the casinos you play? Why play a $25 min rather than a lower?? Is there something magical about a $25 table?
There is such a fascination, even an ego thing, about playing $25 OR HIGHER TABLES, I see it all the time.
Why let the casino psych you into this game. Let me see, $25 to $500 or $5 to $200....you cannot make enough on a $200 especially swinging to max on 2 spots at the great times? You never had the bankroll to take full advantage of the $25 table. Taking the 9k and spending it was a major mistake with the stakes you are playing.
Mr. M, you need to start thinking for yourself and putting it all together and not buying into all the Bull S*it you read in books and forums.
I cannot believe the amount of aspiring AP's that have come and gone, destroyed playing like sheep rather than becoming innovative.
And the casinos worry, what fools!:laugh:
CP
Last edited:
Jack_Black
Well-Known Member
All it takes is a negative deviation -- which can happen in any game SD up to 8D. The probability of this outcome is less than 0.13% -- pretty damn low, but not zero.
You say To-may-to, I say to-mah-to. The chances are extremely low that it could happen playing SD or DD, especially to the degree that it is happening to Mr. M. But it is more likely that it is happening because he is playing multi-deck, where this kind of deviation is the norm.
All it takes is a set of outcomes that result in breaking even -- which can happen in any game SD up to 8D. There is about a 45% probability of breaking even or losing money during one weekend of play.
I agree that this is SOP for a weekend of play at any game, but being break even for a long time? At SD or DD? I stopped playing 6D because it was break even or miniscule gains I was achieving. I now only play DD or 3:2 SD and I’ve experienced much better gains and win rates. Also, I just now realized that I read Mr. M’s post wrong. He started with $14k, won $9k but didn’t add it to the BR, and now he is down to $6k. in 1 week of play he experienced a down swing of $8k, more than half of the BR? Something is not adding up here. What are the chances of that kind of swing happening, especially in a week of play, playing a fair game and playing it accurately? Is that standard deviation for a 1-8 spread 6D?
I've tested it. You can get a positive EV of slightly under 1% with 1:8. This can be enough, depending on one's goals and bankroll.
I just got done testing it too, I got a win rate of $14.56/hr. That is much less than an acceptable 1 bet unit/hr figure since he’s playing $25 units. I could see how he would experience a huge downswing with this.
1:20 yields an EV of around 1.4% -- at a standard deviation that is twice as high as at 1:8. The risk of ruin is ~65% for a 6K bankroll spread 1:20 with $25 minimum bets. It is ~15% for the same bankroll spread 1:8 with $10 minumum bets. Both situations are risky, but the 1:20 scenario couldn't be called conservative for a player with a small bankroll.
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Of course RoR would be 65% with a top bet of $500 vs. a 15% RoR with a top bet of $80. Why aren’t you looking at RoR for both situations with the same top bets but 1 spread out 1-8, and the other spread out 1-20? After that, I would still pick a max bet that correlates to the BR size to make it “conservative.”
You say To-may-to, I say to-mah-to. The chances are extremely low that it could happen playing SD or DD, especially to the degree that it is happening to Mr. M. But it is more likely that it is happening because he is playing multi-deck, where this kind of deviation is the norm.
All it takes is a set of outcomes that result in breaking even -- which can happen in any game SD up to 8D. There is about a 45% probability of breaking even or losing money during one weekend of play.
I agree that this is SOP for a weekend of play at any game, but being break even for a long time? At SD or DD? I stopped playing 6D because it was break even or miniscule gains I was achieving. I now only play DD or 3:2 SD and I’ve experienced much better gains and win rates. Also, I just now realized that I read Mr. M’s post wrong. He started with $14k, won $9k but didn’t add it to the BR, and now he is down to $6k. in 1 week of play he experienced a down swing of $8k, more than half of the BR? Something is not adding up here. What are the chances of that kind of swing happening, especially in a week of play, playing a fair game and playing it accurately? Is that standard deviation for a 1-8 spread 6D?
I've tested it. You can get a positive EV of slightly under 1% with 1:8. This can be enough, depending on one's goals and bankroll.
I just got done testing it too, I got a win rate of $14.56/hr. That is much less than an acceptable 1 bet unit/hr figure since he’s playing $25 units. I could see how he would experience a huge downswing with this.
1:20 yields an EV of around 1.4% -- at a standard deviation that is twice as high as at 1:8. The risk of ruin is ~65% for a 6K bankroll spread 1:20 with $25 minimum bets. It is ~15% for the same bankroll spread 1:8 with $10 minumum bets. Both situations are risky, but the 1:20 scenario couldn't be called conservative for a player with a small bankroll.
Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Of course RoR would be 65% with a top bet of $500 vs. a 15% RoR with a top bet of $80. Why aren’t you looking at RoR for both situations with the same top bets but 1 spread out 1-8, and the other spread out 1-20? After that, I would still pick a max bet that correlates to the BR size to make it “conservative.”
Sonny
Well-Known Member
The variance is not necessarily higher in shoe games than it is in pitch games. Pitch games often have more frequent high counts, which means the player is making bigger bets more often. The short-term results will be more volatile in that case. Someone playing shoe games can also avoid most (or all) of the negative counts as well, which will lower the variance per unit of time. Shoe games usually offer surrender, which lowers the variance and increases the player’s advantage. Just because you are playing a pitch game does not mean that you won’t have the same swings, or larger, than someone playing shoe games. It depends on how you are playing the game.Jack_Black said:
Sure. With the tiny advantage of card counting it is very easy to play for hundreds of hours and still not show a profit. Here’s a good link from the Frequently Asked Questions thread that goes into more detail:Jack_Black said:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4891
-Sonny-
StandardDeviant
Well-Known Member
Mr. M experienced a 8K loss in one week. That is a -3 standard deviations below EV. That is not the "norm" in either SD or 8D.Jack_Black said:
StandardDeviant
Well-Known Member
Jack_Black said:
Because he is playing at the green chip level, and a 1:20 spread would yield a max bet of $500. He ought to be playing at a red chip level and spreading more conservatively. I wanted to point out that 1-8 (his spread level) was still pretty risky at the $10 bet level, but much less risky than a wider spread at higher bet levels. I'm showing two ends of the spectrum.
non-self-weighter
Well-Known Member
Giving advice on bet spreads without knowing specifically the decks/penetration/rules/count/indexes is absurd.
Standard deviation is larger in games with fewer decks.
Standard deviation is larger in games with fewer decks.
StandardDeviant
Well-Known Member
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.non-self-weighter said:
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
Standard Deviant is 100% CORRECT.
Betting any substantial fraction of your bankroll on a given round is absurd.
Most smart players will be betting optimally; which tends to have one place a Max bet when the advantage to the player exceeds 2%.
2% is equivalent to a 51% - 49% edge.
Betting any substantial fraction of your bankroll on a given round is absurd.
Most smart players will be betting optimally; which tends to have one place a Max bet when the advantage to the player exceeds 2%.
2% is equivalent to a 51% - 49% edge.
Please post a sim that supports a -3SD event of losing 320 units with whatever assumptions you are making about his play.StandardDeviant said:
Please include the number of hands you assumed he played in that week.
Anybody who spends all his winnings when he wins, rather than re-investing (including) them in his starting roll has a 100% ROR.
Paying expenses periodically from a roll can be very tough.
Martin Gayle
Well-Known Member
My dear Mr. M,
First of all, when you say you spent $9000 you won I hope it went to paying down your debts, that is why you got into BJ in the first place right?
You have been advised many times begining in the spring not to overbet your bankroll and to take into consideration a reasonable Kelly approach. Now you have lost and are wondering if you should take this advise? Come on.
Yes, you should ALWAYS adjust your max bet, with every session if reasonable.
No one likes a gloater but I am not here to make friends. So here it goes...
Told you so.
First of all, when you say you spent $9000 you won I hope it went to paying down your debts, that is why you got into BJ in the first place right?
You have been advised many times begining in the spring not to overbet your bankroll and to take into consideration a reasonable Kelly approach. Now you have lost and are wondering if you should take this advise? Come on.
Yes, you should ALWAYS adjust your max bet, with every session if reasonable.
No one likes a gloater but I am not here to make friends. So here it goes...
Told you so.
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."?StandardDeviant said:
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.
CptJackhi-lo
New Member
Swings
Lets be realistic if you are playing blackjack on this planet you will lose 100 to 500 units on a regular basis playing SD or DD. Basically all the games suck now with weak penetration, thus high variance and low expectation....a comfortable bankroll ought to be 2000 units then maybe we would not sweat the swings so much either that..or i am just :cry unlucky
Lets be realistic if you are playing blackjack on this planet you will lose 100 to 500 units on a regular basis playing SD or DD. Basically all the games suck now with weak penetration, thus high variance and low expectation....a comfortable bankroll ought to be 2000 units then maybe we would not sweat the swings so much either that..or i am just :cry unlucky
You make a good point lol.CptJackhi-lo said:
My point is if 500 units from EV represnts a 1SD swing in some period of time, then, it doesn't matter whether you have a 1000 unit or 1000000 unit roll - the 1 SD swing will always be what it is, always be 500 units.
The unit SD/hd is fixed by definition of game, etc (sim).
The larger unit roll only enables one to withstand larger SD's of swing.
A 1SD is always the same number of units in a given game given the usual suspects.
One just has lower risk to roll with a larger number of units in a roll.
That's the main point lol - have enough units in your starting roll to withstand as large a SD event as you choose.