sam: check me on this: luck/variance

[paranoid android]

If you do play to the bitter end of your trip bankroll, never put more than half of your remaining bankroll on what could be your last bet as you will no longer have the option to split or double. If you can't split or double, you are playing at a huge disadvantage.

[thanks4thefish]

'I don't think in terms of a "trip bankroll." I generally bring most of my BR with me. Worst case scenario is that I have to take a "bathroom break" in order to access my money belt.'

Agree totally, stop loss is for wimps
That's what money belts & ATMs are for. If you can keep it together, today is just as good to build up your hours & therefore long term win as tomorrow.

'Stop-losses, trip BR, all these are simply signs that you are overbetting your bankroll, IMHO.'

Or that you can't trust yourself when your having a session from hell, from being possessed by 'Gamblor' the gambing demon who loves chasing his tail.

[thanks4thefish]

[Cacarulo]

> I saw it. I just don't operate that way. I
> don't think in terms of a "trip
> bankroll." I generally bring most of my
> BR with me.

Well that's not a good idea in some parts of the world

> Never happen. In the extremely unlikely
> event that I reach a point where I have lost
> half my BR, then it is time to resize my
> bets. No way do I leave in the middle of a
> shoe.

I never said that I would leave in the middle of a shoe. Also, I don't consider good practice to resize my bets. If I can't afford to play a new shoe then I leave.
If I run out of money in the middle of a session I go to the nearest ATM (not the ones inside the casino) or to my home or hotel and get more money. Or simply I come back some other day. After all, it's all a long session.

> Sorry. Stop-losses, trip BR, all these are
> simply signs that you are overbetting your
> bankroll, IMHO.

No, I'm not overbetting. I'm extremely cautious about that.

> Again, I simply cannot imagine being in that
> situation. I always have at least twice the
> "session BR" that I would expect
> to lose in the worst possible "shoe
> from hell" scenario. Also, I keep my
> sessions short (under an hour) simply for
> reasons of heat.

My example was hypothetical and the only intention was simply to show that there are times where it's better to leave. I understand that bringing all the BR with you will avoid that problem and of course I can make my session-ror as small as I can but that was not my point.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

> One of the problems of playing this way is
> that, basically, you should never allow
> yourself to reach the situation you
> describe, because you're "damned if you
> do and damned if you don't."

Come on Don, don't tell me that you never lost more than half your session-BR in the middle of a session. What I say is that at that point (depending on your session-BR) you're facing a very high risk. If your money left can afford you to play another shoe then stay, otherwise leave.
I read somewhere in one of your books that you take or used to take with you a session-BR of 30 units. If you lose 25 units in half an hour what are you going to do with those 5 units left in the next half hour? Of course, you can be VERY lucky and recover from all your losses but it's more certain that you're going to lose those 5 units as well.

> If you truly accepted the 10%+ ROR you
> calculated before you left, then, in fact,
> you SHOULD play with that last $100 --
> otherwise, you really didn't have 10% ROR to
> start out with, if you really intended to
> quit if you got behinbd by $900. So, the
> fact that you would continue with just the
> $100 is wrapped up in your initial strategy
> to play with a trip BR of only $1,000.

One thing is to play with that last $100 if I'm still playing a shoe and another is to start a new shoe with $100 left.

> That said, some people cut back on their
> trip stakes when they lose, say, half of the
> trip bank. This, of course, may extend your
> playing hours, but you will be winning and
> losing at only half the rate that you
> initially intended. I really don't recommend
> that players do this.

I don't do that either.

> If you can't replenish your funds, and you
> can live with finishing out your days of the
> trip without playing (should you tap out), I
> say play to the bitter end, and come what
> may!

But the question is: Which strategy is mathematically better?

> If you keep that $100, you'll never
> know if the cards were destined to turn and
> you were on the verge of a huge win streak.
> Happens all the time.

It's not easy to beat Goliath with a single stone and I'm certainly not David

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

[Sun Runner]

> If I run out of money in the middle of a
> session I go to the nearest ATM (not the
> ones inside the casino).

Why not?

Is big brother watching? Surely not. Ya think!?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Come on Don, don't tell me that you never
> lost more than half your session-BR in the
> middle of a session. What I say is that at
> that point (depending on your session-BR)
> you're facing a very high risk. If your
> money left can afford you to play another
> shoe then stay, otherwise leave.
> I read somewhere in one of your books that
> you take or used to take with you a
> session-BR of 30 units. If you lose 25 units
> in half an hour what are you going to do
> with those 5 units left in the next half
> hour? Of course, you can be VERY lucky and
> recover from all your losses but it's more
> certain that you're going to lose those 5
> units as well.

A session bankroll is a small part of a trip bankroll, which has 6-8 session bankrolls, for me. So, losing a session bankroll is not the same as blowing the whole trip BR.

If I'm down to the last five units of my last session BR on a trip, I will most assuredly keep betting. What's the difference if I lose those five units or not? What am I saving them for?

> One thing is to play with that last $100 if
> I'm still playing a shoe and another is to
> start a new shoe with $100 left.

I'd back-count a shoe with whatever I had left.

> I don't do that either.

It's a free country. Or, at least, it used to be! :-)

> But the question is: Which strategy is
> mathematically better?

> It's not easy to beat Goliath with a single
> stone and I'm certainly not David

Ah, but you never get to know unless you try. :-)

Don

[Parker]

>> I saw it. I just don't operate that way. I
>> don't think in terms of a "trip
>> bankroll." I generally bring most of my
>> BR with me.

> Well that's not a good idea in some parts of
> the world

Well, I don't exactly walk around with a sign on my back that says "I have my entire bankroll on me (and I am unarmed)." :-)

[MGP]

Hmmm,

I think I have to agree with Don on this one for a couple of reasons.

First of all - if you leave before you use your last few units, then what you're really doing is playing based on a smaller Trip Bankroll. As you know, when the Trip ROR is calculated - it is calculated based on total loss of the bankroll so by holding back, you are effectively reducing your Trip BR.

Secondly, as both you and Don said, in the long run - the extra hand or 2 doesn't make a difference. To me it would make sense to possibly stop if you can't afford to play a hand to it's fullest (<6 units) - i.e. not enough to double or split to the fullest, since that's where most of your ev gain is. (I put <6 units since the advantage from splitting twice vs 3 times is usually minimal and doesn't make a big difference in the overall ev). But otherwise, what's the purpose in holding back if you truly accept the initial ROR that you calculated?

Maybe there's a reason not to leave in the middle of a shoe though that I don't know since I don't really play, but mathematically I'm not sure I can accept your argument.

Sincerely,
MGP

[Cacarulo]

> Why not?

It's not safe in the casinos where I play. The cameras can easily see your security code and I'm somehow a little paranoid
I prefer to do these transactions outside the casino.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

> First of all - if you leave before you use
> your last few units, then what you're really
> doing is playing based on a smaller Trip
> Bankroll. As you know, when the Trip ROR is
> calculated - it is calculated based on total
> loss of the bankroll so by holding back, you
> are effectively reducing your Trip BR.

I think that by leaving in those cases I'm actually reducing my Session-ROR and effectively saving some chips.
A simulator used to compute ROR will try to play to the last cent disregarding these type of situations. Many times the program will compute a "loss" when you're still playing a shoe and this shouldn't occur because you shouldn't have started that shoe in the first place.

> Secondly, as both you and Don said, in the
> long run - the extra hand or 2 doesn't make
> a difference.

If you save 2 or 3 chips in each of these sessions it will make a difference in the long run.

> To me it would make sense to
> possibly stop if you can't afford to play a
> hand to it's fullest ( Maybe there's a
> reason not to leave in the middle of a shoe
> though that I don't know since I don't
> really play, but mathematically I'm not sure
> I can accept your argument.

I'll take my example to the extreme. Suppose that you start a new shoe with 1 chip left because you didn't want to call it a day . You backcount the shoe as Don suggested and the count gets really high. You place your chip expecting for a sure win and lose but there's still 1 deck to play and the faces start to show up. Now, you don't have more money and you can't take advantage of this juicy situation.
What did you expect to do with that chip? To win ALL the hands that you play and recover from all your losses? To survive until the end of the session? That's almost impossible.
Besides, backcounting the shoe with those last chips is not what the ROR program does.

Hope you see what my point is.

Sincerely,
Cac

[MGP]

> I think that by leaving in those cases I'm
> actually reducing my Session-ROR and
> effectively saving some chips.

I'm not disagreeing, with regards to the entire bankroll for your session. You are making it less likely to completely ruin if you never play to the point of ruin.

What I was suggesting though is that since you're not playing those last chips - your actually in effect running into ruin for a smaller trip bankroll. Just because you have the extra units with you doesn't mean they count towards your trip bankroll if you don't use them.

> If you save 2 or 3 chips in each of these
> sessions it will make a difference in the
> long run.

How? Does saving those chips on this trip mean you won't lose them in the long run? Does it change you'r overall EV? To take it to the extreme as you did, it's the same old argument, if you were playing a game with an ev of -1e-100, and you saved those extra units by stopping early - would your ev then become positive?

> I'll take my example to the extreme. Suppose
> that you start a new shoe with 1 chip left
> because you didn't want to call it a day .
> You backcount the shoe as Don suggested and
> the count gets really high. You place your
> chip expecting for a sure win and lose but
> there's still 1 deck to play and the faces
> start to show up. Now, you don't have more
> money and you can't take advantage of this
> juicy situation.

No you can't, but your ev for that 1 chip was still positive. I did mention btw that I would consider not playing with less than 6 units so I would be able to take advantage of spliiting and DAS. So my effective bankroll would be 6 units less.

> What did you expect to do with that chip? To
> win ALL the hands that you play and recover
> from all your losses? To survive until the
> end of the session? That's almost
> impossible.

In the long run if your ev is positive then yes - more times than not, over thousands of years of playing, you will recover from your losses.

> A simulator used to compute ROR will try to
> play to the last cent disregarding these
> type of situations. Many times the program
> will compute a "loss" when you're
> still playing a shoe and this shouldn't
> occur because you shouldn't have started
> that shoe in the first place.

> Besides, backcounting the shoe with those
> last chips is not what the ROR program does.

That's more a matter of the ability of the sim and not the true math.

> Hope you see what my point is.

I do, but I still respectfully disagree.

Sincerely,
MGP