kantarou: ace ten and bankroll

[kantarou]

if one can steer "A" or "ten" at 90% accuracy as his first card to one of 2 hands he plays and betting $1000 to each hands.
what is the player's advantage in this situation and
what kind of bankroll does one need to avoid the risk of ruin?

thanks

[Sun Runner]

> if one can steer "A" or "ten" at
> 90% accuracy as his first card to one of 2 hands he
> plays and betting $1000 to each hands.
> what is the player's advantage in this situation and
> what kind of bankroll does one need to avoid the risk
> of ruin?

I hate for a guy not to get an answer, so here is one.

Implied in the question, at least for me, may be that the betting level ($1,000) is a factor in the players advantage. It's not. The advantage is the same betting $100 or $1,000. Certainly the payoff is different.

If you can steer an ace to one of two hands 90% of the time, I'd think your advantage would be appx 23% (51% X 90% / 2).

Steering a ten, about 8% (18% X 90% / 2).

(Look for a quick correction to this if wrong!)

If you are that accurate, I'd look into how accurate you are sterring to one hand only. I believe Snyder suggests in his Cookbook that playing only one hand (instead of two or three) to catch the Ace is preferred.

The risk of ruin? You need to define what Risk of Ruin you are willing to accept .. 0.05%, 1.0%, 5.0%, etc. in order to determine how much bank you need; or state your bank and a Risk of Ruin can be determined.

Good luck.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Implied in the question, at least for me, may be that
> the betting level ($1,000) is a factor in the players
> advantage. It's not. The advantage is the same betting
> $100 or $1,000. Certainly the payoff is different.

And the bankroll requirement. :-)

> If you can steer an ace to one of two hands 90% of the
> time, I'd think your advantage would be appx 23% (51%
> X 90% / 2).

That assumes that there is no disadvantage for the non-ace hand (there is) or for playing the 10% of the time that you steer incorrectly (there may be a disadvantage, especially if you're overbetting your edge in those 10% of hands).

> Steering a ten, about 8% (18% X 90% / 2).

No, the ten is only 14%, so 6.3%, or less.

> (Look for a quick correction to this if wrong!)

Done!

> If you are that accurate, I'd look into how accurate
> you are steering to one hand only. I believe Snyder
> suggests in his Cookbook that playing only one hand
> (instead of two or three) to catch the Ace is
> preferred.

Risky. With two player hands, if you miss, you may give the ace to the dealer with 1/3 probability. With a single hand, that can become 1/2 probability.

> The risk of ruin? You need to define what Risk of Ruin
> you are willing to accept .. 0.05%, 1.0%, 5.0%, etc.
> in order to determine how much bank you need; or state
> your bank and a Risk of Ruin can be determined.

Depends on frequency of the play, I would suppose.

Don

[kantarou]

dear sun runner and don,

thanks for your quick reply.

based on the information you have provided, i did simple math and came up with following expectations.

* with ace in one of your 2 hands, $1000 each hands, the expectation in $ is: $1000X23% less $1000X.5%(assumed diadvantage)=$225

* with ten in one of your 2 hands, $1000 each hands, the expectation in $ is: $1000X6% less $1000X.5%(assumed disadvantage)=$55

* when you miss ace or ten on both of your 2 hands: the expectation in $(negastive)is: $2000X.5%(assumed disadvantage)=$10

*bankroll and risk of ruin
with bankroll of 15 times of your bets=30k,
risk of ruin seems non existant here with the edge this big.

*playing 3rd player hand with minimum will insure that the money card will not go to the dealer. with 90%accuracy of hitting a money card, will you suggest playing one hand or two?

i am at most certain that i did this incorrectly.
i look forward to your correction and suggestion.

thank again.

[Don Schlesinger]

> dear sun runner and don,

> thanks for your quick reply.

> based on the information you have provided, i did
> simple math and came up with following expectations.

> * with ace in one of your 2 hands, $1000 each hands,
> the expectation in $ is: $1000X23% less
> $1000X.5%(assumed diadvantage)=$225

No. Sunrunner was combining the e.v. for the two hands together. With a certain ace in one of two hands, the one hand that has the ace has 51% e.v. The other has less than the house edge off the top, because you know that hand has a less-than-normal chance to receive an ace. Obviously, this effect is less important in a shoe game than it is in SD or DD.

> * with ten in one of your 2 hands, $1000 each hands,
> the expectation in $ is: $1000X6% less
> $1000X.5%(assumed disadvantage)=$55

See above. Same idea. +14% for one hand, less than 0.5% for the other.

> * when you miss ace or ten on both of your 2 hands:
> the expectation in $(negastive)is: $2000X.5%(assumed
> disadvantage)=$10

Unless you have increased the chance that the ten or ace has now gone to the dealer, which is a distinct possibility. In that case, you're screwed.

> *bankroll and risk of ruin
> with bankroll of 15 times of your bets=30k,
> risk of ruin seems non existant here with the edge
> this big.

Right.

> *playing 3rd player hand with minimum will insure that
> the money card will not go to the dealer. with
> 90%accuracy of hitting a money card, will you suggest
> playing one hand or two?

Three! :-)

> i am at most certain that i did this incorrectly.
> i look forward to your correction and suggestion.

Consider it done.

Don

[kantarou]

dear don,

thank you very much for the correction and the explanation.

now for the clarification:
with 90% of accuracy in hitting money card,
you suggest playing three hands.
which combination of three hands are you suggesting?
"1 big bet followed by 2 minimum bets" or
"2 big bets followed by 1 minimum bets" or
"3 big bets"

thanks again.

[Don Schlesinger]

> dear don,

> thank you very much for the correction and the
> explanation.

> now for the clarification:
> with 90% of accuracy in hitting money card,
> you suggest playing three hands.
> which combination of three hands are you suggesting?
> "1 big bet followed by 2 minimum bets" or
> "2 big bets followed by 1 minimum bets" or
> "3 big bets"

I would imagine the second choice. With 90% accuracy for two hands, the third hand is simply to prevent against the one time in ten that you're wrong. You don't want the ace going to the dealer. But, it might look very suspcious to bet $1,000 on each of two hands and $25 on the last one. So, be careful.

Don

[kantarou]

dear don,

thanks for the clarification and the caution.
looking forward to talking to you again in the future.

with most respects,
kl

> I would imagine the second choice. With 90% accuracy
> for two hands, the third hand is simply to prevent
> against the one time in ten that you're wrong. You
> don't want the ace going to the dealer. But, it might
> look very suspcious to bet $1,000 on each of two hands
> and $25 on the last one. So, be careful.

> Don