Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 40

Thread: Seemore Scagnetti: Question for Don

  1. #1
    Seemore Scagnetti
    Guest

    Seemore Scagnetti: Question for Don

    Ive got alot of "advice" on this Question and would like your two cents.

    If, for example ,I have no BR, but I do have $1,000. every two weeks to play with. I play the best LV games I can find, one, two, and six deck.
    Spreading 1-6 and maxing out at 2 hands of 6 units.

    What would be my smartest unit amount to grow my $$$.
    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Question for Don

    > Ive got alot of "advice" on this
    > Question and would like your two cents.

    > If, for example, I have no BR, but I do have
    > $1,000 every two weeks to play with. I play
    > the best LV games I can find, one, two, and
    > six deck.
    > Spreading 1-6 and maxing out at 2 hands of 6
    > units.

    Every two weeks you get another $1,000 that is devoted entirely to blackjack? You don't need it for anything else?

    You can't use the spread you described uniformly for all different games. For example, at single deck, the spread you describe will get you thrown out in 10 minutes.

    > What would be my smartest unit amount to
    > grow my $$$.

    What level of risk are you willing to accept for each of the $1,000 stipends?

    Don

  3. #3
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Lifetime bank

    (Please wait to answer after Seemore replies and you repond to him.)

    His question (and one I've had for some time) goes to how to handle a 'lifetime bank.'

    If I had a BR in hand of $50K, I could set up a game plan for that and it might crank out a max bet of say $300 and a respective ROR of say 1% (I'm guessing about the 1%, but you knew that.)

    If I had a known BR, to be collected at the rate of $2,000 every two weeks for the next twelve and a half months -my 'lifetime bank' is also $50K.

    If I said my ROR is 1% on the $2,000 stipends, I would never get off the ground. Obviously if I increased my max bet to $300 while playing my stipends, chances are excellent that the flux wipes me put every week I show up to play.

    So the question, how do I calc the optimal bet for a series of $2,000 stipends which eventually total $50K and keep the same ROR as above?

    Hope that to be clear.

    Thanks.

    (BTW -I'm thinking my answer to Seemore would be to wait/practice about 90 days and then get after it. Very un-scientific however.)


  4. #4
    Random Poster
    Guest

    Random Poster: Re: Question for Don

    Intuition and a little ignorance would dictate that you just play with a set RoR and just resize your bets after every incremental increase/decrease in your bankroll. So, week 1, you will adjust your BR based on $1,000... Week 3, you will adjust your BR based on ($1,000 original bankroll + Week 1's winnings + the next $1,000 deposit). That, to me, seems like the best way to maximize your returns and minimize the variance pointed out by SR.

    On a side note, SR accurately pointed out that you will be wiped out trip after trip due to variance. What he neglected to say is, you'll still have an edge and given the LONG run, sooner or later you will have a break-out session that will put you in the lead for good if you follow that $50k bankroll bet spread. (think of it as Martingale, except you and the casino reverse roles).

    > Ive got alot of "advice" on this
    > Question and would like your two cents.

    > If, for example ,I have no BR, but I do have
    > $1,000. every two weeks to play with. I play
    > the best LV games I can find, one, two, and
    > six deck.
    > Spreading 1-6 and maxing out at 2 hands of 6
    > units.

    > What would be my smartest unit amount to
    > grow my $$$.
    > Any suggestions would be greatly
    > appreciated.

  5. #5
    Gorilla Player
    Guest

    Gorilla Player: Re: Question for Don

    > Intuition and a little ignorance would
    > dictate that you just play with a set RoR
    > and just resize your bets after every
    > incremental increase/decrease in your
    > bankroll. So, week 1, you will adjust your
    > BR based on $1,000... Week 3, you will
    > adjust your BR based on ($1,000 original
    > bankroll + Week 1's winnings + the next
    > $1,000 deposit). That, to me, seems like the
    > best way to maximize your returns and
    > minimize the variance pointed out by SR.

    > On a side note, SR accurately pointed out
    > that you will be wiped out trip after trip
    > due to variance. What he neglected to say
    > is, you'll still have an edge and given the
    > LONG run, sooner or later you will have a
    > break-out session that will put you in the
    > lead for good if you follow that $50k
    > bankroll bet spread. (think of it as
    > Martingale, except you and the casino
    > reverse roles).

    I think that the problem with this logic is that idea of a "break-out session". I've known several that started to count after talking with me about it, then, when they discovered that spreading aggressively to make any money drives the variance wild, and they ended up busting out multiple times with a modest amount of money, they gave up.

    When I started playing, using perfect BS, before I started to count or play using counting, I kept up with session results for fun. And I guess the idea is that if you play a session long enough, you will experience ups and downs, and when the "down" taps out your BR you are out, before you play through the down and hit the next peak...

    Unfortunately, for many of us, you can never win too much, but you can quickly lose too much. I'd bet that has driven off more counter-wannabes than any other single factor.

    The variance is wild when you are betting big and the dealer can certainly pull the good cards as easily as you can... If only we could reduce N0 to something reasonable. IE why not 100?


  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Lifetime bank

    > His question (and one I've had for some
    > time) goes to how to handle a 'lifetime
    > bank.'

    > If I had a BR in hand of $50K, I could set
    > up a game plan for that and it might crank
    > out a max bet of say $300 and a respective
    > ROR of say 1% (I'm guessing about the 1%,
    > but you knew that.)

    > If I had a known BR, to be collected at the
    > rate of $2,000 every two weeks for the next
    > twelve and a half months -my 'lifetime bank'
    > is also $50K.

    > If I said my ROR is 1% on the $2,000
    > stipends, I would never get off the ground.
    > Obviously if I increased my max bet to $300
    > while playing my stipends, chances are
    > excellent that the flux wipes me put every
    > week I show up to play.

    > So the question, how do I calc the optimal
    > bet for a series of $2,000 stipends which
    > eventually total $50K and keep the same ROR
    > as above?

    > Hope that to be clear.

    Very clear. I think this question more properly belongs on the Theory and Math page of Don's Domain. I've never thought about it before, and, frankly, I've never seen the question asked, either. I don't think it has a trivial, or intuitive, answer.

    The reason is that the correct way to play clearly lies in between playing each week just as if your bank were no more than the money you actually have at the time (too conservative) and playing as if you had all the future, promised, money right now (too risky). The right answer is not apparent to me, so I'll try to give it some thought.

    Don

  7. #7
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: food for thought

    > Very clear. I think this question more
    > properly belongs on the Theory and Math page
    > of Don's Domain. I've never thought about it
    > before, and, frankly, I've never seen the
    > question asked, either. I don't think it has
    > a trivial, or intuitive, answer.

    > The reason is that the correct way to play
    > clearly lies in between playing each week
    > just as if your bank were no more than the
    > money you actually have at the time (too
    > conservative) and playing as if you had all
    > the future, promised, money right now (too
    > risky). The right answer is not apparent to
    > me, so I'll try to give it some thought.

    > Don

    This came up years ago in the context of "computer chess" and how to use the available time to optimize the program's playing skill.

    The basic problem is this... a program (or human for that matter) is given a fixed amount of time to make a fixed number of moves. While he is thinking, his clock runs (if you have ever played or watched a real chess game you will know what I mean). So a simple idea is to divide your time evenly. A normal tournament game might be 40 moves in 2 hours, or 3 minutes per move on average. Easy enough.

    But now for the complication. The program is free to "ponder" (think) while waiting on the opponent to move, and if the opponent thinks a long time and makes the move the program expected, the program will have a move ready to play and won't burn any of it's time off the clock. IE saving time.

    Now, how to use that time? Do you wait until you save it before you use it, and then just add it to the total remaining and divide by the number of moves left? Too conservative as you get near the end of the playing session (40 moves) with a _lot_ of time left on your clock, shouldn't you have used some of that time on critical decisions, when they arose, rather than waiting until probably the game is already decided (most chess games are technically over by move 40 even if they last much longer).

    So, a more aggressive idea (which my program has always used) is to say "OK, I know I will save some time later, so I'm going to go ahead and use some of it before I have saved it, when circumstances make that worthwhile."

    So I can't really use it _all_ before I save it, because I don't know how much I will end up saving, but then again, I also don't want to wait until saving it before using it or that might be too late.

    Seems very similar to this exact question... We answered the question by playing thousands of chess games (a sort of simulation) to see in the "typical" game how much time we might save due to this effect. Then we went back and modified the time allocation to use that time earlier in the game where it might help us find a winning move or avoid a losing move. And we fiddled with that tweaking for a couple of years off and on until it seemed to hit a "smooth point". Yes, it won't always work right. Sometimes we save way more time than normal, and end up with extra time that isn't going to help much because it would have been better had we used it earlier. Other times we don't save as much as expected, and we end up being behind on time and then have to allocate less time than normal per move to avoid overstepping the time control.

    That _really_ sounds like an analogy to this question, IMHO. Too aggressive and you go bankrupt during each session (run out of time and lose a game in chess parlance). Too conservative and you end up too much saved up time, or in the case of BJ with a betting schedule that could have been adjusted upward to provide more profit...

    food for thought...

    Only difference here is that he knows how much "time" he will save every week because he knows how much additional money he will have coming in to his bankroll, something that I don't know in chess until after the fact...

  8. #8
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Don's Domain .. it's there .. thanks. *NM*


  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: More food for thought

    > Only difference here is that he knows how
    > much "time" he will save every
    > week because he knows how much additional
    > money he will have coming in to his
    > bankroll, something that I don't know in
    > chess until after the fact...

    I have no doubt that the BJ problem is quite solvable, as it is posed. I just don't know the right answer at the moment.

    There is actually a kind of related problem that Johnny Chang asked me about and that he hadn't yet solved. It concerned having a large bank at home and bringing only a portion of it with you on a trip. The question is: How do you play on that trip? As if you had just the money that's with you (too conservative), or as if you really had all the rest of the money, but which you can't access on this trip (too risky)?

    The answer is clearly a function of how long the trip is going to last. If it's very short, you play just about as if you had all the money with you, because, should you tap out, you once again have access to the full bank rather quickly. But, suppose the trip is going to last a year? Then, clearly, you have to play as if the money that's with you is all the money that you have, because you can't afford to tap out and not be able to play for so long a period of time.

    So, the question is: How do you play for intermediate periods of time, such as, say, two weeks or a month? Again, I don't know the answer right now.

    Don


  10. #10
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Question for Don

    > Intuition and a little ignorance would
    > dictate that you just play with a set RoR
    > and just resize your bets after every
    > incremental increase/decrease in your
    > bankroll. So, week 1, you will adjust your
    > BR based on $1,000... Week 3, you will
    > adjust your BR based on ($1,000 original
    > bankroll + Week 1's winnings + the next
    > $1,000 deposit). That, to me, seems like the
    > best way to maximize your returns and
    > minimize the variance pointed out by SR.

    If you are assuming a 1% ROR, seems that works out to a max bet of about $10 or $15 .. at best a 1:3 spread if you can find it.

    > On a side note, SR accurately pointed out
    > that you will be wiped out trip after trip
    > due to variance. What he neglected to say
    > is, you'll still have an edge and given the
    > LONG run, sooner or later you will have a
    > break-out session that will put you in the
    > lead for good if you follow that $50k
    > bankroll bet spread.

    I'm just trying to envision -it's all I can do because my BJ math skills suck -an approx $20 unit, a $300 max bet, on a $2,000 session BR, with only 25 shots at finding that 'break-out' session. It 'seems' very risky (another non-quantifiable statement on my part.)

    The first time I split, doubled and lost that first max bet I'd be bummed big time.

    Without a decent math based answer I'd feel like I was some sort of degenerate gambler, or worse.



    Thanks for the input -I've posted on Don's Domain -we'll see what they have to say.

  11. #11
    pm
    Guest

    pm: question

    > The answer is clearly a function of how long
    > the trip is going to last. If it's very
    > short, you play just about as if you had all
    > the money with you, because, should you tap
    > out, you once again have access to the full
    > bank rather quickly. But, suppose the trip
    > is going to last a year? Then, clearly, you
    > have to play as if the money that's with you
    > is all the money that you have, because you
    > can't afford to tap out and not be able to
    > play for so long a period of time.

    So it's really just a convenience thing. Mathematically, whether or not you have all of your bank at any given time will make zero difference as long it's there (or will be there, as in the original scenario), right?

  12. #12
    thall
    Guest

    thall: Re: Question for Don

    I would guess (as I am in similar state) that he does have a set bankroll. How many times could he lose $1000 every two weeks before he gave it up? Say 1 year, $26,000, would the max bet be about $125? And for you lucky stiffs that can take a $50,000 bank on your trip, how much would you drop in one trip before you say "this aint my weekend, I'll live to fight another day"? Maybe $5,000 give or take(I'm guessing here), and come back willing to gamble a similar amount again before running. Surely you wouldn't stay thru one long, cold, heartless losing streak until you lost your entire bank and enjoyment of BJ. Similar to above lifetime bank.

  13. #13
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Question for Don

    > I would guess (as I am in similar state)
    > that he does have a set bankroll. How many
    > times could he lose $1000 every two weeks
    > before he gave it up? Say 1 year, $26,000,
    > would the max bet be about $125? And for you
    > lucky stiffs that can take a $50,000 bank on
    > your trip, how much would you drop in one
    > trip before you say "this aint my
    > weekend, I'll live to fight another
    > day"?

    And what is to prevent your losing streak from picking up right where it left off? The only way to get to the long run is to put in the hours at the table.

    > Maybe $5,000 give or take(I'm
    > guessing here), and come back willing to
    > gamble a similar amount again before
    > running. Surely you wouldn't stay thru one
    > long, cold, heartless losing streak until
    > you lost your entire bank and enjoyment of
    > BJ. Similar to above lifetime bank.

    Why not, since the BR can be replenished? Why not give it your best shot and "go for broke?"

    "Enjoyment of BJ?" I play to make money.

    I think most pros will tell you that they lost their "enjoyment of BJ" early in their careers.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.