> In Playing Blackjack as a Business, Revere
> advocates dividing the total bankroll into
> four, thirty unit session bankrolls and,
> playing until the session bankroll is
> doubled or lost. I have read the current
> authoritative advice on money management and
> realize this is not even close to being
> accurate advice to maximize profit while
> minimizing risk. i.e.: One should have a
> minimum bankroll of 100 MAX bets to minimize
> the possibility of negative variance tapping
> them out.

Although 100 max bets seems overly cautious to me, Revere was rather reckless, relying on the info he had available at the time. Also, his advice was probably for some of the better SD games that existed in his era. It is wildly inappropriate for today's shoe games.

> What is the ROR if one plays with four,
> thirty unit bankrolls until each is doubled
> or lost as Revere published?

Much too general a question to answer. if the first 30 units are doubled, what now? Do you continue to play for the smae stakes with five 30-unit banks? Do you put the 30 units that you won aside?

> Maybe a better way to ask this question is:
> What is the probability of losing 4
> consecutive thirty unit bankrolls at an
> average game spreading 1-6?

Again, just the odds of losing four consecutive banks, or the odds of losing four before doubling any of them? It's not the same thing. Here's a rough estimate, taking a hi-lo, 1-6, DD, s17 das, 70/104 game. ROR for 30 units is about 86%. Losing that four times in a row is the same as losing a 120-unit bank, and the ROR is simply .86^4, or about 54%.

> And this two part question is speculative:

> Did Revere believe that having a 20 max bet
> bankroll was sufficient to beat the game in
> the long run?

If he wrote it, he believed it.

> Or was this sound advice when he was playing
> because the average game was far more
> favorable to the counter?

One doesn't contradict the other. Yes to the above as well.

Don