Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 15

Thread: AsZehn: CVCX Q for Norm

  1. #1
    AsZehn
    Guest

    AsZehn: CVCX Q for Norm

    Using CVCX for 80% Pen, 8 Deck S17 DAS, BR 5500, Spread 3 Back-counting -4 I get a win rate of .46 with a Std Dev of 8.14 per hour. How would I calculate required trip BR for 8 or 16 hours with 10% ROR?

    AZ

  2. #2
    AsZehn
    Guest

    AsZehn: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > Using CVCX for 80% Pen, 8 Deck S17 DAS, BR
    > 5500, Spread 3 Back-counting -4 I get a win
    > rate of .46 with a Std Dev of 8.14 per hour.
    > How would I calculate required trip BR for 8
    > or 16 hours with 10% ROR?

    > AZ

    Forgot to mention, 25 unit.

  3. #3
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > Spread 3 Back-counting -4

    What does this mean???

    What count are you using?

    >I get a win rate of .46.

    Is that units or percent?

    Don

  4. #4
    AsZehn
    Guest

    AsZehn: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > What does this mean???
    1-3 unit spread, enter @ RC -4, irc -28

    > What count are you using?
    KO Preferred

    > Is that units or percent?
    units

    > Don

  5. #5
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm


    CVCX performs two sets of risk related calculations. The main page deals with long-term risk. If you hit Calculators you reach a different set of calculators. Hit Bankroll to find the bankroll required given time, desired risk and goal. However, this is a double-barrier calculation. That is, the bankroll required to reach a specified goal without going bust. It sounds like you are interested in single-barrier. That is, short-term bankroll required to avoid going bust with no upper barrier (i.e. goal.) CVCX doesn?t calculate this as I?ve never found it particularly useful. Reminds me too much of a stop-loss limit. Long-term risk requires access to your full bankroll. Seems to me if you are limiting yourself to losing only a portion of your bankroll in a trip, your long-term risk is higher than you think. If users say otherwise, I?ll add it.

    Regards,
    norm





  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    Sounds like you're questioning the validity of the whole trip risk of ruin formula concept. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

    Teams often have players playing in different areas simultaneously, where the individuals do not have easy access to the joint bankroll. There is a need to know, for the levels at which one is playing and the proposed length of the trip, how much cash is required to have a reasonable chance of not tapping out during the trip.

    Furthermore, often, individual players, playing for cash, do not wish to bring their entire bankroll on a trip with them. Obviously, knowing how much to take to have enough "ammunition" to not tap out most of the time is a helpful piece of information to have. For reasons I don't have to explain, not everyone plays on a credit line.

    And, I can easily think of other reasons to have such a formula.

    For the record, the trip ROR formula is a part of BJRM 2002.

    Don

  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: More

    For a $5,500 bank, $25 unit, and 1-3 spread (woefully inadequate), BJRM says you should enter at -1, not -4.

    You win is $9.50 per hour and your ROR is 1.64%, because your unit, for that size bank, ought to be $50, not $25, if you bet optimally and are willing to accept 12-13% risk.

    For an 8-hour trip, you need $680 of bank for 10% ROR, and for a 16-hour trip, you'll need $928.

    Finally, Norm, the double-barrier formula in the calculators is the same as the one in BJRM (as you well know!), so I'm not sure why you say you can't use it. Just set the upper goal to an unattainable level. In this case, I set it to $99,999, which is the same as saying that it really isn't there at all.

    Don

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: More

    > For a $5,500 bank, $25 unit, and 1-3 spread
    > (woefully inadequate), BJRM says you should
    > enter at -1, not -4.

    Almost no difference in SCORE between -1 and -4. Really depends on the situation - number of tables, how suspicious you look not playing, player preference.

    > Finally, Norm, the double-barrier formula in
    > the calculators is the same as the one in
    > BJRM (as you well know!), so I'm not sure
    > why you say you can't use it. Just set the
    > upper goal to an unattainable level. In this
    > case, I set it to $99,999, which is the same
    > as saying that it really isn't there at all.

    If you have an unattainable goal, the probability of reaching it is zero.

  9. #9
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > Sounds like you're questioning the validity
    > of the whole trip risk of ruin formula
    > concept. I guess you're entitled to your
    > opinion.

    Tell you the truth, I have very little faith in the use of statistics when dealing with very small data sets. Comes from the first time I saw two polls taken on the same day each with a stated accuracy of +/- 4% but differing by 15% That aside, consider this. If you calculate a betting ramp given a specified RoR, and then you divide your bankroll such that you do not have always have full access, then you are affecting your RoR. Clearly it will not drop as far as it would if your total bankroll dropped to the subdivided value. But it must drop to some degree, particularly considering the volatility of card-counting. The fact that a large percentage of your overall wagering occurs in small spurts. The sum of the parts is not the whole. I don?t think that we can tell people that they have a 13.5% RoR given a specified bankroll and betting ramp; and then say it?s OK to only put ?at risk? a percentage of that bankroll while maintaining the same overall RoR. Perhaps there?s been a discussion on this before that I haven?t seen.

    In any case, if you think it makes sense to add trip bankroll to CVCX I?ll throw it in. With some provisos.

    Regards,


  10. #10
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: More

    > If you have an unattainable goal, the
    > probability of reaching it is zero.

    Precisely. So, the probability of going broke before attaining that goal is simply the probability of going broke! And, that's what you're looking for.

    Don

  11. #11
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > Tell you the truth, I have very little faith
    > in the use of statistics when dealing with
    > very small data sets. Comes from the first
    > time I saw two polls taken on the same day
    > each with a stated accuracy of +/- 4% but
    > differing by 15% That aside, consider
    > this. If you calculate a betting ramp given
    > a specified RoR, and then you divide your
    > bankroll such that you do not have always
    > have full access, then you are affecting
    > your RoR. Clearly it will not drop as far as
    > it would if your total bankroll dropped to
    > the subdivided value. But it must drop to
    > some degree, particularly considering the
    > volatility of card-counting. The fact that a
    > large percentage of your overall wagering
    > occurs in small spurts. The sum of the parts
    > is not the whole. I don?t think that we can
    > tell people that they have a 13.5% RoR given
    > a specified bankroll and betting ramp; and
    > then say it?s OK to only put ?at risk? a
    > percentage of that bankroll while
    > maintaining the same overall RoR. Perhaps
    > there?s been a discussion on this before
    > that I haven?t seen.

    > In any case, if you think it makes sense to
    > add trip bankroll to CVCX I?ll throw it in.
    > With some provisos.

    BJRM 2002 incorporates the idea. There are two different expressions of the trip win, depending on whether or not you have just the trip bank or "infinite" bank. So, it takes into account the fact that, occasionally, you tap out early, in which case you never achieve your full potential for the trip.

    There is no inconsistency in calculating an overall, long-term 13.5% ROR and then importing those data into the trip ROR section to study another question. The study of that latter question is perfectly valid; it doesn't imply that, since this is the way you have chosen to play, you now ought to go back and rethink your original premise. In fact, you should, but that has no impact on the trip ROR study you are presently doing.

    Don

  12. #12
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > There is no inconsistency in calculating an
    > overall, long-term 13.5% ROR and then
    > importing those data into the trip ROR
    > section to study another question. The study
    > of that latter question is perfectly valid;
    > it doesn't imply that, since this is the way
    > you have chosen to play, you now ought to go
    > back and rethink your original premise. In
    > fact, you should, but that has no impact on
    > the trip ROR study you are presently doing.

    Seems contradictory to me. Using the second calculation invalidates the first.

  13. #13
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: CVCX Q for Norm

    > Seems contradictory to me. Using the second
    > calculation invalidates the first.

    You're linking the two, unnecessarily. I have a right to make a long-term, continuous-play ROR calculation. In so doing, I don't have to sign an affidavit that I'll never tap out during a trip.

    Your lifetime of play is one long trip. The original formula doesn't care if you have to cut a few trips short because you run out of funds. How can that affect your long-term ROR? You just go home early and pick up where you left off at some future time. How would the long-term ROR formula know that?

    That said, no one is going to place you up against a firing squad if you now make a different calculation.

    So now, someone asks you: "What if my win rate is x, my SD is y, I have trip bank z, and I plan to play for 16 hours on my next trip. What's the chance I'll tap out?"

    Before you answer that question, is it necessary for you to ask the person if he/she has ever made a long-term ROR calculation in his life, prior to this time? Why would that matter?

    Don

Page 1 of 2 12 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.