# Thread: blackjack ranger: Team Compensation ? for Don

1. ## blackjack ranger: Team Compensation ? for Don

Do you know of a mathematically correct way to distribute funds short of doubling bank considering amount won?

I guess considering either a draw situation or short term agreements?

Would fixed vs resizing wagers affect the answer?

Thank you very much for your time.

2. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Team Compensation ? for Don

> Do you know of a mathematically correct way to
> distribute funds short of doubling bank considering
> amount won?

See BJA3, pp. 298-301 for the most comprehensive answer possible. :-)

> I guess considering either a draw situation or short
> term agreements?

Whatever floats your boat. I have always found most team compensation schemes ludicrous and ridiculous beyond my wildest dreams.

> Would fixed vs resizing wagers affect the answer?

Anything can affect the answer, since it depends on the win rate.

> Thank you very much for your time.

Read first, then come back with more questions.

Don

3. ## blackjack ranger: Re: Team Compensation ? for Don

> See BJA3, pp. 298-301 for the most comprehensive

> Whatever floats your boat. I have always found most
> team compensation schemes ludicrous and ridiculous
> beyond my wildest dreams.

> Anything can affect the answer, since it depends on
> the win rate.

> Read first, then come back with more questions.

> Don

I don't think it helps much because it assumes a very stable playing environment. What if the player plays several games in any one session so it is hard to get a constant win rate and standard deviation.

I do think it reinforces my thoughts that for smaller amounts of money won the amount paid to the player should be a smaller percentage.

What if pay were given on a certain % of bank won. I would think a higher % would be given at 100% of bank won versus 10% or 25%. This method also enables there to be short, medium or long run agreements.

Related would be if a draw could be established over time, perhaps based on % of bank won toward doubling bank.

4. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Team Compensation ? for Don

So, apparently, it didn't help?

> I don't think it helps much because it assumes a very
> stable playing environment.

Why do you say that?

> What if the player plays
> several games in any one session so it is hard to get
> a constant win rate and standard deviation.

You do the best you can. You can figure the win rates separately and add them, and you can square the s.d.s, to get variances, add them, and then take the square root, to get back to the global s.d. None of this has much to do with how a team devises compensation.

> I do think it reinforces my thoughts that for smaller
> amounts of money won the amount paid to the player
> should be a smaller percentage.

Most pay schemes work on TIME played, not money won. You have no control over the latter; it is what it is. Players should be paid an agreed-upon percentage of the team win, based on time put in (pro-rated), provided a minimum amount of time is played. The formula is for determining that lesser percentage only when there is an agreement that the split can be made prematurely, with a penalty to the players for wanting to take an early cash-out.

> What if pay were given on a certain % of bank won. I
> would think a higher % would be given at 100% of bank
> won versus 10% or 25%. This method also enables there
> to be short, medium or long run agreements.

There are many ways to structure payouts. Rick Blaine goes over several of them, pointing out pros and cons, in his excellent "Blackjack Blueprint," which you should read if you haven't already.

> Related would be if a draw could be established over
> time, perhaps based on % of bank won toward doubling
> bank.

I'm against this, but that's just me. I don't think players should get paid if no money is won. The investors risk their money, if things don't go well. The players need to risk something too -- in this case, their time. I'm against using investor money to pay players, when there are no profits, or when there are losses.

Don

5. ## blackjack ranger: Let's Simplify Things For Me :)

> So, apparently, it didn't help?

> Why do you say that?

> You do the best you can. You can figure the win rates
> separately and add them, and you can square the s.d.s,
> to get variances, add them, and then take the square
> root, to get back to the global s.d. None of this has
> much to do with how a team devises compensation.

> Most pay schemes work on TIME played, not money won.
> You have no control over the latter; it is what it is.
> Players should be paid an agreed-upon percentage of
> the team win, based on time put in (pro-rated),
> provided a minimum amount of time is played. The
> formula is for determining that lesser percentage only
> when there is an agreement that the split can be made
> prematurely, with a penalty to the players for wanting
> to take an early cash-out.

> There are many ways to structure payouts. Rick Blaine
> goes over several of them, pointing out pros and cons,
> in his excellent "Blackjack Blueprint,"

> I'm against this, but that's just me. I don't think
> players should get paid if no money is won. The
> investors risk their money, if things don't go well.
> The players need to risk something too -- in this
> case, their time. I'm against using investor money to
> pay players, when there are no profits, or when there
> are losses.

> Don

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

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

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

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?

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.

or

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

6. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Let's Simplify Things For Me :)

> 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

7. ## blackjack ranger: Can This Work?

> 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

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

8. ## Don Schlesinger: Re: Can This Work?

> 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
> 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

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•