Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 40

Thread: Seemore Scagnetti: Question for Don

  1. #14
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: question

    > So it's really just a convenience thing.

    No, you didn't read carefully.

    > 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?

    Not if it isn't available to you on a trip and you run out of money, thereby losing opportunity because you can't play anymore.

    Don

  2. #15
    Random Poster
    Guest

    Random Poster: Re: Question for Don

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

    So true... so true... I'm surprised that people often overlook this point. I've read so many books that talk about how fun BJ really is and all the highs and lows of the game. You can become a world-class player and travel the world and all sorts of other promises; I learned early on that playing 4-6 hours a day, 1-2 weeks a month really wasn't for me.

    If I had to describe the experience, I would compare it to being Pavlov's dog... you're conditioned to make certain responses based on certain stimulants. It's so mindless and repetitive that I can only stand going to the casinos once every two-three months (usually about the time it takes me to forget how boring the whole ordeal really is). It's funny, but I think the best part of being a card-counter was learning and researching and even reading other people's experiences.

  3. #16
    Random Poster
    Guest

    Random Poster: Re: Question for Don

    let's assume that you have a 10% chance of making all the money in the world IN A SESSION based on having a $1000 current bankroll (i'm using current since it will be replenished) and a betspread that doesn't support that bankroll. The idea of having one breakout session is that you
    have a slim chance of "breaking out" of the variance trap... your RoR would be less than 90% though since there will still be sessions in between where you've lost some money or broke even... but you didn't lose your entire bankroll... But since you have a 10% chance of breaking out, let's say you have a 90% chance of NOT breaking out.. what are your chances of not breaking out in 2 sessions? 90%^2=81%... as you have more chances to break out, the percentages of you NOT breaking out becomes lower and lower. In this case, you'll need the equivilent of 7 times or $7000 to have a better than 50% of breaking out...

    Again, don't criticize me too harshly.. this is all based on intuition and elementary stat... :-)

    and yes, you're right, the first couple sessions would entail a max bet of something minimal, so it's probably best to wait until week 5 or 7 to start.

    > 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.

    > 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.

  4. #17
    Random Poster
    Guest

    Random Poster: Re: More food for thought

    Mind-boggling! I've just treated as "cash in hand" versus "wishful thinking". I've always invested my money with the assumption of cash in hand. If I have $1000 today and will contribute another $1000 next week to my IRA, I'd divide the $1000 today into certain portions and then divide next week's the same way. I wouldn't put 100% of this week's and next week's into Microsoft (ok, no bashing, Linux users!!), then put 100% of the next 2 weeks into Oracle in the hopes of building my tech portfolio (one of many) within the year.

    Johnny's problem is different than Seemore's because Johnny already has cash in hand, so he can take certain liberties that Seemore can't/shouldn't.

    Don, here's a tertiary question that goes along with Seemore's question... we are all assuming that Seemore begins playing with his $1000. Would it even be considered "more optimal" for Seemore to WAIT until he collects a bigger bankroll than to start playing now?

    > 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

  5. #18
    Seemore Scagnetti
    Guest

    Seemore Scagnetti: Re: Question for Don

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

    > Don

    Sorry ,Should have mentioned bet spread for
    single deck 1-4, multideck upto two hands of six units(of course I will adapt whatever spread you recommend)
    ROR, 5% or less.
    I don't have exactly $1,000 play with,but close enough so I picked a number I thought may make things less complicated.

    have enjoyed everyones post so far...Thanks.

  6. #19
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: More food for thought

    > Don, here's a tertiary question that goes
    > along with Seemore's question... we are all
    > assuming that Seemore begins playing with
    > his $1000. Would it even be considered
    > "more optimal" for Seemore to WAIT
    > until he collects a bigger bankroll than to
    > start playing now?

    That's a nice question to ask, but I think that, no matter how small the beginning unit, playing something would make more sense than not playing at all and forfeiting the revenue from that minor play. Of course, $1,000 doesn't buy you much at the BJ tables these days, so, perhaps, from a practical viewpoint, you may be right.

    I hope we get some theoretical discussion of this over on the Theory & Math Page of Don's Domain. It's an interesting category of related problems to try to solve, and I've invited a few "heavyweights" to try their hand at it.

    Don

    Don

  7. #20
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Question for Don

    > let's assume that you have a 10% chance of
    > making all the money in the world IN A
    > SESSION based on having a $1000 current
    > bankroll (i'm using current since it will be
    > replenished) and a betspread that doesn't
    > support that bankroll. The idea of having
    > one breakout session is that you
    > have a slim chance of "breaking
    > out" of the variance trap... your RoR
    > would be less than 90% though since there
    > will still be sessions in between where
    > you've lost some money or broke even... but
    > you didn't lose your entire bankroll... But
    > since you have a 10% chance of breaking out,
    > let's say you have a 90% chance of NOT
    > breaking out.. what are your chances of not
    > breaking out in 2 sessions? 90%^2=81%... as
    > you have more chances to break out, the
    > percentages of you NOT breaking out becomes
    > lower and lower. In this case, you'll need
    > the equivilent of 7 times or $7000 to have a
    > better than 50% of breaking out...

    Zenfighter used a similar logic in a private e-mail to me, but your problem here is that you don't address the ROR from the very first session. You say the ROR would be less than 90%, but you don't quantify it. Suppose it's 70%. Then, after two sessions (or "periods"), close to 50% of all the beginning players will already be wiped out.

    Do you see the problem? There has to be a balance between starting ROR and desire to have meaningful e.v., and that's what makes the question intriguing, in my mind.

    Don

  8. #21
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: Another idea

    > Would it even be considered
    > "more optimal" for Seemore to WAIT
    > until he collects a bigger bankroll than to
    > start playing now?

    Seemore could take a loan of say 30k and then play to this bankroll with the ROR he wishes.
    He would use his stipends to pay back the loan.
    I think the additional money he can make through higher stakes will outweigh the interests.

    Francis Salmon

  9. #22
    Francis Salmon
    Guest

    Francis Salmon: So you are a chess programmer?

    I find it amazing how the chess programs have increased in strength over the last decade.Ten years ago I would beat them easily but now I'm clearly the underdog with my Elo of 2330.
    So it seems to me you did a great job!

    Francis Salmon

  10. #23
    gorilla player
    Guest

    gorilla player: Re: So you are a chess programmer?

    > I find it amazing how the chess programs
    > have increased in strength over the last
    > decade.Ten years ago I would beat them
    > easily but now I'm clearly the underdog with
    > my Elo of 2330.
    > So it seems to me you did a great job!

    > Francis Salmon

    yes I am, and yes my program has its way with players rated 2500 and below, which is incredibly hard to believe, since my first program played its first move in 1968 and 5 years later had an official USCF rating of around 1500. A couple of years back four programs played in a round-robin match with 4 GM players (including GM Larry Christiansen to name one, as well as Roman "Dzhindy" who is a good friend of mine). The computers finished in the top 4 places, the four GMs in the bottom four. Never expected that. But then again, neither did I expect Deep Blue to beat Kasparov in 1997.

    Technology marches on of course, so even with no software improvements the damned things get stronger ever year. Wish we humans could emulate that.

    BTW with a 2300+ rating (FIDE or USCF?) you are obviously not a patzer.

  11. #24
    Sun Runner
    Guest

    Sun Runner: Re: Question for Don

    > Again, don't criticize me too harshly.. this
    > is all based on intuition and elementary
    > stat... :-)

    Me criticize an answer steeped in math/stat ... hardly!

    > and yes, you're right, the first couple
    > sessions would entail a max bet of something
    > minimal, so it's probably best to wait until
    > week 5 or 7 to start.

    That's what I'm thinking exactly.

    I still hope to get a better answer.

  12. #25
    pm
    Guest

    pm: Re: question

    So if you were getting chunks of $2,000 every day for 25 days, you'd be safe in playing, right off the bat, as if you had a $50K BR.

    But if you were getting $2,000 every other week for 50 weeks, you'd want to play more conservatively in order to decrease your chances of tapping out, thereby increasing your chances of getting in more play time before your next $2,000 chunk comes in. And the quandary is finding the optimal ev vs. play time tradeoff.

    Is that right?


  13. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: question

    > So if you were getting chunks of $2,000
    > every day for 25 days, you'd be safe in
    > playing, right off the bat, as if you had a
    > $50K BR.

    Well, not exactly, because, if you bet at the $50,000 level, with only $2,000, you'd be tapping out all the time, without getting a fair run with your $2,000.

    > But if you were getting $2,000 every other
    > week for 50 weeks, you'd want to play more
    > conservatively in order to decrease your
    > chances of tapping out, thereby increasing
    > your chances of getting in more play time
    > before your next $2,000 chunk comes in. And
    > the quandary is finding the optimal ev vs.
    > play time tradeoff.

    > Is that right?

    Yes, exactly.

    Don

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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.