Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Alexost: Revere and ROR.

  1. #1
    Alexost
    Guest

    Alexost: Revere and ROR.

    In Playing Blackjack as a Business, Revere advocates dividing the total bankroll into four, thirty unit session bankrolls and, playing until the session bankroll is doubled or lost. I have read the current authoritative advice on money management and realize this is not even close to being accurate advice to maximize profit while minimizing risk. i.e.: One should have a minimum bankroll of 100 MAX bets to minimize the possibility of negative variance tapping them out.

    What is the ROR if one plays with four, thirty unit bankrolls until each is doubled or lost as Revere published?

    Maybe a better way to ask this question is: What is the probability of losing 4 consecutive thirty unit bankrolls at an average game spreading 1-6?

    And this two part question is speculative:

    Did Revere believe that having a 20 max bet bankroll was sufficient to beat the game in the long run?

    Or was this sound advice when he was playing because the average game was far more favorable to the counter?

    Thanks for any answers/opinions/comments!

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Revere and ROR.

    > In Playing Blackjack as a Business, Revere
    > advocates dividing the total bankroll into
    > four, thirty unit session bankrolls and,
    > playing until the session bankroll is
    > doubled or lost. I have read the current
    > authoritative advice on money management and
    > realize this is not even close to being
    > accurate advice to maximize profit while
    > minimizing risk. i.e.: One should have a
    > minimum bankroll of 100 MAX bets to minimize
    > the possibility of negative variance tapping
    > them out.

    Although 100 max bets seems overly cautious to me, Revere was rather reckless, relying on the info he had available at the time. Also, his advice was probably for some of the better SD games that existed in his era. It is wildly inappropriate for today's shoe games.

    > What is the ROR if one plays with four,
    > thirty unit bankrolls until each is doubled
    > or lost as Revere published?

    Much too general a question to answer. if the first 30 units are doubled, what now? Do you continue to play for the smae stakes with five 30-unit banks? Do you put the 30 units that you won aside?

    > Maybe a better way to ask this question is:
    > What is the probability of losing 4
    > consecutive thirty unit bankrolls at an
    > average game spreading 1-6?

    Again, just the odds of losing four consecutive banks, or the odds of losing four before doubling any of them? It's not the same thing. Here's a rough estimate, taking a hi-lo, 1-6, DD, s17 das, 70/104 game. ROR for 30 units is about 86%. Losing that four times in a row is the same as losing a 120-unit bank, and the ROR is simply .86^4, or about 54%.

    > And this two part question is speculative:

    > Did Revere believe that having a 20 max bet
    > bankroll was sufficient to beat the game in
    > the long run?

    If he wrote it, he believed it.

    > Or was this sound advice when he was playing
    > because the average game was far more
    > favorable to the counter?

    One doesn't contradict the other. Yes to the above as well.

    Don

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.