fellow playas, i have a interesting question. If you had a bankroll, that allowed you win 100.00 per hour, but had a ror of 65%, would you play at that level, if you were able to save up that exact bankroll after 4 months of work? if you can replenish the bankroll in 4 months of work, if lost,wouldnt it be worth it to play at that level. taking that same bankroll and using a 13.5% ror would return meager profits and stop you from playing the better quality 25 minimum games.even if the 65% comes true more than not, eventually you would find yourself in the 35% and win money for a long time, as long as you dont raise your betting units.what do you think?
Would you play with a 65% ROR??
- Thread starter lucifer
- Start date
Is it safe to assume that, that, 65% , meant the farm, wife and kids, and My "bud light?" If yes, then NO, I wouldnt play with a 65% RoR.
If it just meant the farm, wife and kids, then ya, I probably would.
All kidding aside, I would probably settle for a 50% RoR, provided its replenishable after 4 months. That should give you 12.5%(1n8) of LOSING everything after 16months.
If it just meant the farm, wife and kids, then ya, I probably would.
All kidding aside, I would probably settle for a 50% RoR, provided its replenishable after 4 months. That should give you 12.5%(1n8) of LOSING everything after 16months.
I played with a 50%+ RoR for quite some time, I'm probably still up in the 20-30% range. But then again, my blackjack bankroll is about two days' wages for me, so the worst thing that happens if I go busto is that I have to buy my wife's anniversary presents on a credit card and let her know how much I spent instead of buying it with cash like the balla I am.
It seems to me that it would be preferable to play with a "hail Mary" bankroll, using a very high RoR, as long as you can easily replenish it. Even if you go bust the first few times you try this, you will eventually have a large win that will allow you to establish a lower RoR with a larger bankroll. I think the benefit of playing the more profitable games would outweigh the fact that you'll occasionally have to sit out a few months.
Of course, all this is assuming that your 4-month bankroll is money that you can easily lose without negatively affecting any other aspect of your life.
Of course, all this is assuming that your 4-month bankroll is money that you can easily lose without negatively affecting any other aspect of your life.
reason im asking is, i am thinking of buying a house in vegas, and will have to use a large portion of my bankroll to buy the house.after the deposit and furnishing the house, i will be left with a small bankroll,but i want to continue to play at the level, or close to the level i am playing at. my cash flow from work will allow me to save up the same bankroll after about 4 months of work. If i do go bust, i wont have much entertainment money, but all bills will be paid before saving bankroll.
Last edited:
Spend those first four months scouting every casino in the city. Watch every game, every dealer, every shuffle, every pit boss, every shift change, all the regular players and so on. Get the appropriate players cards in the appropriate names if you need them. Maybe even start stockpiling some chips if you find some casinos that you know you will be playing. By the time you’ve unpacked all the boxes in your new house you will have doubled your bankroll, you will have a bunch of great games to play and you will be prepared to take full advantage of the opportunities.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
The only interesting question to me is if YOU will risk the same win rate with a smaller roll at the expense of a higher ROR or accept a lower win rate with a smaller roll at a risk you used to play at before you bought the farm. Or house.
Although, I confess, I do always also find it interesting why someone even bothers to ask people how they would bet my money.
Before I make a bet of whatever size with whatever roll, the only person I have ever had to convince is me. If I couldn't convince myself, I didn't play.
I've never played with a "Lifetime (infinite) ROR" anyway. Always preferred to define my risk over a fixed number of future rounds. Usually with a break-even goal. I'm basically just a recreational/"trip-roll" guy lol.
The roll I'd need to make $100/hr, with a risk I'd find acceptable, in the number of rounds available to me per year, at my age, just doesn't work for me lol.
65% ROR - I don't have the slightest clue what that means or what it would feel like lol.
Although I did buy $5 today on a Powerball ticket with an ROR of 99.99999+%
with a chance of winning $120MM in 30 seconds of play lol.
Somehow, that was OK with me though lol.
Good luck to you whatever you decide to do.
Although, I confess, I do always also find it interesting why someone even bothers to ask people how they would bet my money.
Before I make a bet of whatever size with whatever roll, the only person I have ever had to convince is me. If I couldn't convince myself, I didn't play.
I've never played with a "Lifetime (infinite) ROR" anyway. Always preferred to define my risk over a fixed number of future rounds. Usually with a break-even goal. I'm basically just a recreational/"trip-roll" guy lol.
The roll I'd need to make $100/hr, with a risk I'd find acceptable, in the number of rounds available to me per year, at my age, just doesn't work for me lol.
65% ROR - I don't have the slightest clue what that means or what it would feel like lol.
Although I did buy $5 today on a Powerball ticket with an ROR of 99.99999+%
with a chance of winning $120MM in 30 seconds of play lol.
Somehow, that was OK with me though lol.
Good luck to you whatever you decide to do.
Well, when you introduce a goal of doubling before going bust, assuming no time limit on your play, a guy with a 65% "lifetime ROR" would have like a 60%chance of doubling roll before busting and only a 40% chance of busting. Even a guy with a 90% "lifetime ROR" might have greater than a 50% chance of doubling roll before busting if he played with no time limit and stopped when either busting or doubling occurred.
It's, I think, probably because a guy with a 90% ROR might only have, say, a 35 unit roll when he would have,say, a 700 unit roll if playing Kelly.
We all know how relatively easy it is to double a 35 unit roll. All you have to do is win 35 units. The trouble is, even when you have 70 units, if you choose to play beyond that point, you will pretty often, not hard to imagine, eventually often lose the 70 units from that point forward. So all those times you'd double, triple your original 35 unit roll account for the difference between a 90% "lifetime ROR" and a 50+% ROR of doubling before going bust.
Now a full-kelly guy with that 13.5% ROR would have to have those 700 units as a roll to have that risk. Obviously he won't win 700 units and double his roll that often so the chances of doubling before busting are more in line with the "lifetime" 13.5% risk. Yet, even then, sometimes he still would lose his doubled roll if he continued to play. So he might have, say, an 88% chance of doubling and a 12% chance of busting. The extra 1.5% of "lifetime" risk happens when he occasionally still loses his doubled roll of 700 units.
Kind of like you could play with a 1-unit roll and have a 99.99999% lifetime risk yet only have a 50%ish chance of doubling before busting if you see what I mean.
So, perverse as it may sound, the higher the lifetime risk the lower the risk of busting before doubling relative to original risk.
I think
Again, the above assuming no time limit on one's play.
Goals, time, roll, risk.
It's, I think, probably because a guy with a 90% ROR might only have, say, a 35 unit roll when he would have,say, a 700 unit roll if playing Kelly.
We all know how relatively easy it is to double a 35 unit roll. All you have to do is win 35 units. The trouble is, even when you have 70 units, if you choose to play beyond that point, you will pretty often, not hard to imagine, eventually often lose the 70 units from that point forward. So all those times you'd double, triple your original 35 unit roll account for the difference between a 90% "lifetime ROR" and a 50+% ROR of doubling before going bust.
Now a full-kelly guy with that 13.5% ROR would have to have those 700 units as a roll to have that risk. Obviously he won't win 700 units and double his roll that often so the chances of doubling before busting are more in line with the "lifetime" 13.5% risk. Yet, even then, sometimes he still would lose his doubled roll if he continued to play. So he might have, say, an 88% chance of doubling and a 12% chance of busting. The extra 1.5% of "lifetime" risk happens when he occasionally still loses his doubled roll of 700 units.
Kind of like you could play with a 1-unit roll and have a 99.99999% lifetime risk yet only have a 50%ish chance of doubling before busting if you see what I mean.
So, perverse as it may sound, the higher the lifetime risk the lower the risk of busting before doubling relative to original risk.
I think
Again, the above assuming no time limit on one's play.
Goals, time, roll, risk.
I’m saying that you shouldn’t play at all in those few months. Do all of your scouting first. By the time you are ready to play you will have saved up the extra bankroll money, you will be more prepared and you will be playing better games.
I don’t consider that a great game. It’s very good for sure, but not great. Spend a few months scouting and you will find much better games than that.
-Sonny-
I don’t consider that a great game. It’s very good for sure, but not great. Spend a few months scouting and you will find much better games than that.
-Sonny-
