blackjack ranger: Team Compensation ? for Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> To make it easier, let's consider a team of one
> investor and one player.

OK.

> page 297 of bja 3
> Under "Distribution of winnings" you write
> winnings will be distributed once the bank is doubled.

That's what we did then. It can still be done that way, but when a large number of hours go by, and the bank is still far from doubled, the natives start to get restless. So, hours is another way to go.

> So that seems to be based on amount won and not hours
> played.

See above.

> Is there a mathematically correct way to make
> distributions based on money won short of the bank
> being doubled, even if it ends the agreement?

I would use the formula in the book, with the dollar equivalent substituted for the number of hours required to earn that amount, in e.v. So, where, in the book's formula, someone would ask for a distribution based on playing only half of the required hours, you could do it based on winning only half of the required money.

> Something simple like:
> If 10% of bank won the player can receive 3% of amount
> won, even if this ends the agreement.
> If 100% of bank won the player receives 50% of amount
> won. etc.

Yes, see above. That is a possibility. But, again, this arrangement is completely devoid of a reference to time, and that isn't always a good thing, as, for many, time, also, is money.

> A plan involving draws based on money won while
> working toward the goal of actually doubling the bank
> in dollars.

And what happens when you give the draw, "along the way," and then all the money won is lost back, and you have no profits at all, but the player still has his draw? Does he have to give it back? Good luck with that! Or, does he get to keep it even though the team is in the red and may never be profitable? Do you see the problem?

> Thanks again for your time.

My pleasure.

Don

[blackjack ranger]

> OK.

> That's what we did then. It can still be done that
> way, but when a large number of hours go by, and the
> bank is still far from doubled, the natives start to
> get restless. So, hours is another way to go.

> See above.

> I would use the formula in the book, with the dollar
> equivalent substituted for the number of hours
> required to earn that amount, in e.v. So, where, in
> the book's formula, someone would ask for a
> distribution based on playing only half of the
> required hours, you could do it based on winning
> only half of the required money.

> Yes, see above. That is a possibility. But, again,
> this arrangement is completely devoid of a reference
> to time, and that isn't always a good thing, as, for
> many, time, also, is money.

> And what happens when you give the draw, "along
> the way," and then all the money won is lost
> back, and you have no profits at all, but the player
> still has his draw? Does he have to give it back? Good
> luck with that! Or, does he get to keep it even though
> the team is in the red and may never be profitable? Do
> you see the problem?

> My pleasure.

> Don

Given your formula is a little above my math abilites and I still don't think it is really feasable to come up with an accurate ev and sd given the many variables in play.

From Mathprof:

Compensation for a player based on NO, the shorter the time horizon the less the pay.

NO %--- % to player
10----- 3
20----- 12
30----- 18
40----- 24
50----- 28
60----- 32
70----- 36
80----- 40
90----- 43
100---- 46

Could this table be adapted?
If you look at the 100% level the pay is 46% which is 92% of the full 50% pay. So could one just multiply each value by 1.08% to get the actual money won equivalent?

I think you will say that the table is very game dependent? and cannot be used for one size fits all?

If it can be mathematically adapted then if a player wants to leave the team or needs to be fired they can be paid fairly for their time.

Perhaps this is an alternate route.
How would you determine an hourly wage? I guess the answer would once again involve your formula but at least one could determine their win rate and SD. Could CE be used?

Thanks again for even more of your time

[Don Schlesinger]

> Given your formula is a little above my math abilities
> and I still don't think it is really feasible to
> come up with an accurate e.v. and s.d. given the many
> variables in play.

Then how do you expect to come up with a fair pay scale when you can't even evaluate the win rate of the game(s) you are playing. First things first, no?

> From MathProf:

> Compensation for a player based on NO, the shorter the
> time horizon the less the pay.

> NO %--- % to player
> 10----- 3
> 20----- 12
> 30----- 18
> 40----- 24
> 50----- 28
> 60----- 32
> 70----- 36
> 80----- 40
> 90----- 43
> 100---- 46

> Could this table be adapted?

Don't know how he got his numbers. Don't have the time to check them with the formula, but, of course, I made a starting assumption of 50% pay for 100% of N0.

> If you look at the 100% level the pay is 46% which is
> 92% of the full 50% pay. So could one just multiply
> each value by 1.08% to get the actual money won
> equivalent?

Sure. Of course, it's theoretical money won. You may not win anything, and you seem unwilling to address that point. MathProf's numbers are based on hours played, as is my formula. You want to base everything on money won, but I think that's a bad idea.

> I think you will say that the table is very game
> dependent and cannot be used for one size fits all?

Naturally. That's a given. How can you know N0 when you don't know e.v. and s.d.?? You're just going around in circles.

> If it can be mathematically adapted then if a player
> wants to leave the team or needs to be fired he can
> be paid fairly for his time.

That's exactly what the formula does. So, use MP's numbers if you like, but understand that they refer to TIME and not MONEY!

> Perhaps this is an alternate route.
> How would you determine an hourly wage?

I wouldn't. I don't believe in them. But, clearly, if you go that route, it's a small percentage of the actual win rate or CE. In my opinion, in matters such as these, there is no one right answer. If the investor is willing to pay an hourly wage to the player, even if no money is won, that's his business. So, the two agree on a number that is satisfactory to both, but, from my viewpoint, the investor surely always gets the shaft with such an arrangement.

> I guess the
> answer would once again involve your formula but at
> least one could determine their win rate and SD. Could
> CE be used?

See above.

> Thanks again for even more of your time

If I were one investor and one player, I'd devise the scheme exactly as I wrote it in the book, at the end of the Team Play chapter. It isn't complicated at all; it's simple. To me, you're looking to to make it more complicated, not less.

Don