Ideas on cashing out from bankroll?

[Nyne]

I forgot to mention, there are different RoR formulas available. In years past, the risk of ruin before doubling your bankroll seems to have been the most popular. CVCX generally outputs risk of ruin if you play forever, although other outputs are available as well. For small risk levels, these 2 risks will be fairly close to each other. For larger risk levels (smaller bankrolls), the difference will grow. There is also a formula for risk of ruin before hitting a specified goal. I believe the formulas are all available in BJA3, and maybe in Modern Blackjack too.

[Aslan]

My posts already addressed this, but I will challenge your challenge! The issue is, that either the 1% already figures in that you will withdraw from your bankroll in a certain way or it was never 1% in the first place! A standard RoR already takes into account what I referred to as the 'conditional RoR's' of possible future bankroll levels. The potential for your bankroll to grow, uninhibited, and reduce in RoR is part of the original (standard) RoR. Taking money out during wins and nothing out during losses is like a reverse loss rebate. We have already seen how powerful this concept is, just look at Don Johnson. What's the harm in the casino giving back some of it's winnings ?


For any other details of what I'm trying to get across, I refer you to my poor-accessibility wall-o-text . Dang, I'm getting too hooked on smiley's, people are going to take me less seriously...

When you take out when you win, down to your starting bankroll, you are, in effect, starting all over again with your 1% or whatever ROR. If you don't take it out, your ROR becomes less than what you began with, if that's what you're saying. It's always better to leave some in. A good policy would be to leave the part attributable to positive variance in, not that the cards have any memory that you were lucky, but because the odds are you will have similar losses along the way. If you go back to your original $10,000 bankroll, and if you should have a net loss in your first few outings, your ROR has now changed to higher than when you started as far as your present BR goes. I think we are saying the same thing in different words. The main point I had is that ROR does not consider reinvestment of what you win. Even the cash you take out each time is used in figuring how much you have won from your original starting point, so if you go bust, but had taken out $12,000 along the way, I'd say you are still $2,000 ahead, even though you have nothing but a new $2,000 pool cue to show for it.

I hope I said that right, because I don't have time tonight to make sure because I have one foot out the door. But I think we're in agreement, and besides, I wasn't challenging you personally to begin with. Gotta go.



Who cares if people don't take you seriously. You know what you know. Screw them. It's their loss. But I appreciate your words, It is a good way to look at it. It's so elementary-- the more you build your bankroll, the lower your chance of going bust, all things being equal.

[Nyne]

I also am headed out the door, but I've gotta disagree with you Aslan. The standard risk of ruin calculations we use are based on full reinvestment of any winnings. They assume that any winnings you have are available to help absorb any downswings that are larger than your starting bankroll. The formulas have no way of factoring in the many different schemes of withdrawing winnings that could be devised, although a new formula for RoR could be devised for any specific withdrawal scheme.

[NotEnoughHeat]

When you take out when you win, down to your starting bankroll, you are, in effect, starting all over again with your 1% or whatever ROR. If you don't take it out, your ROR becomes less than what you began with, if that's what you're saying.

I agree with this

A good policy would be to leave the part attributable to positive variance in, not that the cards have any memory that you were lucky, but because the odds are you will have similar losses along the way. If you go back to your original $10,000 bankroll, and if you should have a net loss in your first few outings, your ROR has now changed to higher than when you started as far as your present BR goes.

I agree with this as well. With the same playing/betting strategy, as well as 'bankroll strategy', the less you have in your BR the higher your RoR is.

I think we are saying the same thing in different words. The main point I had is that ROR does not consider reinvestment of what you win. Even the cash you take out each time is used in figuring how much you have won from your original starting point, so if you go bust, but had taken out $12,000 along the way, I'd say you are still $2,000 ahead, even though you have nothing but a new $2,000 pool cue to show for it.

As was discussed in the older thread I started on RoR, there's different flavors of RoR. Few of the big name posters (wonder what the mug-shot of one 'em at the Binion looks like) championed particular ones, including the infinite time, no barrier, flavor. However, in most of the very standard ones (including the double your bank one), full reinvestment is always considered. While in your example you'll still be up $2000 or whatever amount, that's your life bankroll not your blackjack bank. If your blackjack BR is your life BR, then you never really withdrew in the first place.

I hope I said that right, because I don't have time tonight to make sure because I have one foot out the door. But I think we're in agreement, and besides, I wasn't challenging you personally to begin with. Gotta go.

I know. You were responding to T3 and challenging the idea, not his authority or credibility or any of that silly stuff you sometimes see around here. I was just being playful and trying to continue the trend of intelligent debate. If I didn't respect you as a valuable forum member, I wouldn't have worded it that way.

P.S. thanks for chimming in Nyne, I felt like I was starting to repeat myself and sound like a broken record. I found the paragraphs about kelly and CE very informative. You seem to be a bankroll expert!

[Three]

Great info Nyne. I will find this useful info in the future. I have not taken from my BR except for car expenses. I will be doing so in the future though. I am glad to have some idea of how to do it safely.

[ohbehave]

Thank you, Nyne, for taking the time to explain.

[Aslan]

I also am headed out the door, but I've gotta disagree with you Aslan. The standard risk of ruin calculations we use are based on full reinvestment of any winnings. They assume that any winnings you have are available to help absorb any downswings that are larger than your starting bankroll. The formulas have no way of factoring in the many different schemes of withdrawing winnings that could be devised, although a new formula for RoR could be devised for any specific withdrawal scheme.

I don't think that is right and here's why.

If you begin with $10,000 and a calculated ROR of 1% and you win $3,000 right off the bat, you do not need to reinvest that $3,000 in order to meet your ROR requirements, because if you spend that $3,000, your remaning bankroll is now $10,000 and if you recalculate your ROR it will be the exact same 1% as when you started.

OTOH, if you lose $3,000 right off the back and then win $1,000, you must reinvest that $1,000 because it is not "real" winnings since it is merely recoupment of a part of your previous loss. You must reinvest any amount that represents a recoupment of loss, but not that which is over and above your original bankroll. This is why I say that the ROR calculation does not take into account the reinvestment of winnings. It only requires reinvestment of recouped losses.

To push it to the absurd, if you won $20,000 right off the bat, it would be like saying $30,000 ($20,000 plus $10,000) would have to remain in your bankroll to make your ROR computation valid. This is clearly not the case.

I agree with Don in one sense that ROR is a lifetime calculation, but in another sense I see a practical value in seeing it as a finite amount, such as the popular doubling your bankroll. It only makes sense that if you double your bankroll, you now have two bankrolls, each with a 1% ROR. If you lose one of them, you still have the other, and you are even overall.

If you won $100,000 and removed it from your bankroll, then subsequently lost the original $10,000, you could hardly see this as defeat. It will happen 1% of the time on average. What it would mean is that your were successful 10 times over, and failed once. When you removed the $100,000 you were beginning a new bankroll, not continuing the same bankroll. You have to judge lifetime winnings against lifetime losses, and this is where I agree with Don (at least I think he agrees with this. I don't want to put words in his mouth). But if you cannot take winnings out lest you violate your ROR and incur a higher risk of ruin over what you had when you began, why play at all? You must take winnings out! That's the purpose of playing. and when you do, your ROR remains 1%, it doesn't increase. We play for profit. Winnings above you initial bankroll are profit. Profit pays your expenses, buys your gas, and purchases your clothes. Is it wise to keep some of your winnings for a rainy day-- of course! That only makes sense. But it's not included in the ROR calculation.

[Bodarc]

I found the paragraphs about kelly and CE very informative. You seem to be a bankroll expert!

Nyne is an expert on many things.

[Three]

If you begin with $10,000 and a calculated ROR of 1% and you win $3,000 right off the bat, you do not need to reinvest that $3,000 in order to meet your ROR requirements, because if you spend that $3,000, your remaning bankroll is now $10,000 and if you recalculate your ROR it will be the exact same 1% as when you started.

Just spend the profits every time you are over your initial BR and see how fast you go bust. The ride to the top of the mountain is full of hills and valleys. If all you got were the valleys and drops and spent the increases you would hit that run that would make you go bust eventually. I go to great strides to smooth the ride and have invested all my profits into my BR and still lost 1/3rd of my BR after growing it over 400%. Had I been spending my profits I would have gone bust. Like Don says if you experience ruin it will probably be early because you BR should be growing. If you spend it to maintain a constant BR you never leave the early stage when you are more likely to go bust. Time is on the side of the AP but you keep resetting the clock to 0. Tim e is not on your side anymore when you do that. In other words if you experience ruin it will liely happen quickly at the start before you start building your BR. If you are always at the start you never get to where you are probably not going to experience ruin.

[Three]

I suggest keeping withdrawals below 1/2 of your CE, which, if your bets are sized properly, will be 1/4 of your EV. This is a fairly safe level, although you still will experience more severe drawdowns than if you weren't taking money out, which is why I suggest waiting until you have room to decrease your bets a couple of times if necessary. You could relax this a little if you have the ability and willingness to put some money back into your bankroll from outside sources if you experience a bad run.

Aslan, did you finish reading Nyne's post. He defines a safe amount to withdraw from your winnings. See above. This was the info I was thanking him for posting.

[Aslan]

Just spend the profits every time you are over your initial BR and see how fast you go bust. The ride to the top of the mountain is full of hills and valleys. If all you got were the valleys and drops and spent the increases you would hit that run that would make you go bust eventually. I go to great strides to smooth the ride and have invested all my profits into my BR and still lost 1/3rd of my BR after growing it over 400%. Had I been spending my profits I would have gone bust. Like Don says if you experience ruin it will probably be early because you BR should be growing. If you spend it to maintain a constant BR you never leave the early stage when you are more likely to go bust. Time is on the side of the AP but you keep resetting the clock to 0. Tim e is not on your side anymore when you do that. In other words if you experience ruin it will liely happen quickly at the start before you start building your BR. If you are always at the start you never get to where you are probably not going to experience ruin.

It is true that you have a greater chance to go bust if you don't reinvest your funds over your initial bankroll amount, but that has nothing to do with your original ROR, which is still just as valid the second, third and fouth time you return to it as it was the first. What you are doing when you reivest winnings that are over and above your initial bankroll is establishing a NEW ROR which is much smaller than the one your started out with. This is self evident. If you win $5,000 over your initial bankroll and now have a $15,000 bankroll, you have in effect a new bankroll, a $15,000 one, that has a much lower ROR that the one you started with. It does not have anything to do with your initial ROR calculation. Each and every time you start out with an ROR of 1%, that is all the risk you have no matter how many times you do so. It stands on its own, otherwise ROR means nothing. Your bankroll, like a roll of the dice, has no memory of past wins and losses.

[Three]

It is true that you have a greater chance to go bust if you don't reinvest your funds over your initial bankroll amount, but that has nothing to do with your original ROR, which is still just as valid the second, third and fouth time you return to it as it was the first. What you are doing when you reivest winnings that are over and above your initial bankroll is establishing a NEW ROR which is much smaller than the one your started out with. This is self evident. If you win $5,000 over your initial bankroll and now have a $15,000 bankroll, you have in effect a new bankroll, a $15,000 one, that has a much lower ROR that the one you started with. It does not have anything to do with your initial ROR calculation. Each and every time you start out with an ROR of 2%, that is all the risk you have no matter how many times you do so. It stands on its own, otherwise ROR means nothing.

If you got a RoR for reinvesting your winnings, as they all seem to be. If you take your winnings the RoR that was calculated is not correct. You were deluding yourself to call that your RoR. Yes you would go back to your original RoR but what you quote as your RoR is not actually your RoR because you are not reinvesting your profits. Your original RoR was some higher percentage than what was calculated using the calculators. I keep referring to Don's statement that if you don't go bust quickly you probably won't go bust. That is because your BR is growing. If you don't allow it to grow you are always in that starting period where you are far more likely to go bust. Think about that for a minute.A certain size downswing will bust you. If you grow your BR much you are probably out of the woods and much more unlikely to bust. is is part of the RoR percentage. If you never grow your BR you are always in the higher percentage part for going bust. Your RoR is therefore much higher than the calculator told you it was. The RoR calculators output is not your RoR because you never grow your BR to a point that you are probably out of the woods.

[Aslan]

Aslan, did you finish reading Nyne's post. He defines a safe amount to withdraw from your winnings. See above. This was the info I was thanking him for posting.

Yes, I read it, and agree that you can devise an ROR scheme in a non-traditional way if you choose.

If your goal is to double your bankroll, yes you have to keep your winnings as part of your bankroll. Otherwise, you'd never reach that goal. But I see it more in the sense of your life time winnings over your life time losses. The fact that your take winnings out of your bankroll doesn't make them any less winnings.

If I win and spend $10,000, I would consider that doubling my money, maybe not my bankroll, but my money. And I do agree that eventually you will probably go bust at a 1% ROR, but hopefully not until you have doubled what you began with more than once.

If it's a race to get from $10,000 to $40,000, because you are not comfortable with a $10,000 bankroll, then the smart thing to do would be to start with $40,000 bankroll, so you could always play within your comfort zone. I thought the idea of advantage play was not just to play with an advantage but with as little risk as reasonably possible, so the only thing I can see that would justify playing at too risky an ROR for your comfort would be that you just don't have the cash to begin with, and are gambling that you can grow your bankroll to a point where you are comfortable --because if you happen to start off losing, your ship is already sunk to hear your scenario above. Nothing personal Tthree, believe me.

I say, start with an amount that is adequate to weather all the ups and downs, not one that has to grow to a certain point before you can breathe easily. That sounds too much like downright gambling.

In all of this, I have not even mentioned whether your bankroll is replenishable or not. That makes all the difference in the world. If it is all the money you have in the world, I can see one's fear of taking any of his winnings out, other than for absolute necessities.

The bottom line to me is to play with an ROR/bankroll that can handle all the ups and downs. If that means not playing the $25 game you want to play, but instead playing the $10 game, that to me is the answer. I didn't learn AP to justify my gambling, I learned it to take as much of the gambling out of it as possible.