> 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.
If you had the entire $50K BR, wouldn't your session banks be around $2,000 anyway? If so, what's the difference between that and getting 2 grand everyday?
> If you had the entire $50K BR, wouldn't your
> session banks be around $2,000 anyway? If
> so, what's the difference between that and
> getting 2 grand everyday?
Once you blow 2 grand you are out until you get more money. If you blow 2 grand and the shoe is still hot, and you have money, you continue playing... But for this particular thread, when you blow your 2 grand, you stop playing for a while, which probably means the trip is cut short...
This is an interesting problem, but not one I care about as I'm not sure I'd be in that particular situation often enough. I take with me what I plan to play with and win/lose/draw. If I hit a bad run, I often quit in disgust, but that doesn't mean the bad run won't continue at the next table... But it does feel good to leave.
Most new counters seem to understand everything _but_ the variance. Yet that is the most important concept to keep in mind, otherwise you might end up with a bullet in your head when you play a sure-fire game and still lose badly for a session or several.
First time my son went with me as a sort of "team" deal, he got really aggravated with me giving me the "I thought you said we would win" argument. I finally got him to understand the concept of N0, the long term, and short-term variance. He still winces, but he understands that we will get it back at some point. So long as you don't go broke first... then you have to quit of course.
> If you had the entire $50K BR, wouldn't your
> session banks be around $2,000 anyway?
Yes, close enough.
> If so, what's the difference between that and
> getting 2 grand everyday?
Some of us play more than one session a day, no?
Don
> Most new counters seem to understand
> everything _but_ the variance. Yet that is
> the most important concept to keep in mind,
> otherwise you might end up with a bullet in
> your head when you play a sure-fire game and
> still lose badly for a session or several.
>
If you're referring to me, what in the world gave you the idea that I don't understand variance? Variance isn't the issue here, anyway, because ROR is the same in all these cases (no matter how you split up your $50K BR); the issue is reduced hours of play (which is caused by variance, but again, it's not the variance itself that hurts you, it's the reduced play time).
> If you're referring to me, what in the world
> gave you the idea that I don't understand
> variance?
Sorry, but not a single _thing_ gave me that idea. It was just a note since lots of people read these posts, besides the poster and the person he was responding to.
If it read that I was talking to you, sorry... It was more a point of clarification since I had posted earlier in this thread...
mea culpa...
> Variance isn't the issue here,
> anyway, because ROR is the same in all these
> cases (no matter how you split up your $50K
> BR); the issue is reduced hours of play
> (which is caused by variance, but again,
> it's not the variance itself that hurts you,
> it's the reduced play time).
It is the variance that causes the reduced play time however... that was why I mentioned it... If the variance could be driven way down, the ROR would become moot, and small bankrolls would be fine..
But again, I wasn't directly talking to you so please don't be offended...
I am the simplest of simple minds in the crowd of people joining in this conversation. But, If I might step out on a limb and just ask something that hopefully hasn't already been asked. If it has and I'm just being redundant then please disregard this. It's just my point of view, and as was stated if it were that simple then there would have already been the answer given. But here it is. One of the things I have learned from being here is that our blackjack playing is just one continuous game. When we quit from day to day the next time we start, it's just resuming our 1 long life game. Time doesn't matter or impact our lifetime end result. I have seen people talk about quitting at such and such time, for whatever reason. It was then pointed out that the time in between our sessions is of no relevance.
With that being said, if two people (with 72k total bank)walked into the casino with 6k each on their persons, but one had 66k more out in the car whereas the other would have to make an hours drive to get his next 6k from his 66k stash,(Given that we are just playing one big continuous game),the guy that has to make a trip out to the parking lot does not have an advantage over the guy that has to drive 2 hours before resuming play. Also I would assume that in playing by "BJ" code one would not walk into a joint underbanked for the session he is about to play. With that in mind, the maximum I have bankrolled is 12 playing sessions. I say 12 because as I said, you wouldn't sit down to a session without being properly banked. So that puts the absolute max for your 6k at whatever the spread it will properly cover for one session. Now, if you tap out that 6k. Well you have 11 sessions left to try and get back into the black.
The fact that you may have to wait a month isn't relevant (other than boredom) because it's one continuous life session. One month, one day, one hour, it's all the same. Now if you win your 6k session and end up in the plus then at the end of the month take that 6k plus the winnings divide equally among the 11 remaining months, you could then adjust your betting up because your sessions just received a bump up in their bankroll. You could then play the next months to whatever the new max spread is. I have said all this in such a way that it sounds like I believe it to be fact. Thats not the case. The whole thing should be read as more of a question scenario than anything, as I'm not one to say it is or isn't one way or another. Maybe the whole thing was junk. It's just that knowing time in between our sessions is not relevant to our lifetime winnings,
I would take the 6k each month and play like there was no tomorrow. Then redistribute any winnings to make my next month spread at the max also. Maybe I missed the whole point of the question anyway. If so, my apologies, and disregard this or blow holes through my thinking, so I can learn from it. Either way it's an interesting thread you guys have going, I'll be eagerly watching to see if a true answer comes about.
Good Day!!
Kid
I understand exactly what you're asking; I was going to post pretty much this exact same question myself, but I asked a different question and got the clarification from Don.
(I'm pretty confident that I have this right; I'm sure I'll be called out quickly if I don't).
You're absolutely right that it wouldn't change your expected winnings at all if you started out with
a) $6K on you person and $66K in the car, as opposed to
b) $6K on your person and the other $66K at, say, a 2 week journey away (as a more extreme example than a one hour drive).
But in a one year period, scenario a) will generate much more money. As long as you never lose your whole bank, you could play $6K sessions every day of the year if you wanted. That's 365 sessions. In scenario b), assume that every time you go back to your $66K stash, you still only pull out $6K for a session. Since you're playing your $6K at a $66K level, your chances of losing this money (and even extra money from previous wins) are pretty high. Since you have to wait two weeks to get more money, you're losing a lot of playing time. There is no way you'd be able to get 365 sessions in a year (I'd imagine it'd be more like 50 or something).
Now like you said, playing, say, 100 hours using scenario a) has the exact same average win as scenario b). But actually getting in the 100 hours of play in scenario b) will take much longer.
Also, imagine if someone said they'd give you $2,000 every other week for 100 years. Your total bank would be (365.25 * 100)/14 * 2000 = about $5.2 mil. If you played your sessions at a $5.2 mil level, well, first of all, your unit would probably be more than 2 grand, but even besides that, you'd be making much less by having continuous 2 week dry spells. Hell, you'd have to get lucky to even have a session that lasts more than a few hands. So the number of hands you get to play in the first year would be really low.
As Don said, there's an optimal ev vs. play time tradeoff that can be calculated. You don't want to start out by not playing at all (because even a small expected win rate is better than zero), but you don't want to start out playing at your full bank level (and most likely lose out on money-generating play time).
Unfortunately, I can't participate in two threads on the same topic, on two different pages.
I'll be participating in this thread on the Theory & Math page of Don's Domain and hope you will join me there.
Don
Sorry about that Don, I had originally put this post on that page, but instantly had second thoughts about it. Thought I was kind of out of line,posting in the middle of such a thread on a heavyweight page. So I moved it here, just to get my 1/2 cent out there. :-) But I understand what you are saying, and I am definitely following the thread there.
Kid
On page 123, where you discuss IS, the topic of a 5,000 hand trip comes up. It then switches to talking about a 5,000 hour trip.
At first I assumed a typo or something, but then it goes on to mention the same 5,000 hour trip again. Again I just want to make sure I know what I'm reading. Typ0o or have I missed the transition in the paragraph?
Thanks!
Kid
> Sorry about that Don, I had originally put
> this post on that page, but instantly had
> second thoughts about it. Thought I was kind
> of out of line,posting in the middle of such
> a thread on a heavyweight page.
Post away dude.
You paid your money and those guys there do NOT have an attitude. I just try to be careful and respectful and try not to post from the hip so to speak.
It has forced me to think things through, as much as I can, before I pony up a question.
Unlike out here among Parker's people, I'm a little slower to twist off and speak my mind -in there it's all (mostly) about BJ.
> On page 123, where you discuss IS, the
> topic of a 5,000 hand trip comes up. It
> then switches to talking about a 5,000 hour
> trip.
> At first I assumed a typo or something, but
> then it goes on to mention the same 5,000
> hour trip again. Again I just want to make
> sure I know what I'm reading. Typo or have
> I missed the transition in the paragraph?
You have found one of (alas!) several typos that will be corrected for the softcover edition. Thank you very much for pointing it out.
Don
> Kid
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks