Movin' On Up: red to green or green to black

**SiMi** · 03-17-2014, 11:36 AM

Hi, All!

This may be covered in BJA3 but I can't find it there or in any of the books I have... I'm not sure what topic to look under.

Let's say your B/R is big enough to handle $100 min bet ($500,000 bankroll) but you start your 'career' with a min. unit of $5, say, so you can get some skills without losing your a$$. Eventually you're ready to step up to green units and keep your spread and everything the same. Then, eventually, you're ready to step up to black chip min.

Once you step up, can you ever go back to a lower unit (because conditions don't always allow $100 or $25 play) with that same bankroll? Are you just wasting your time to ever play at lower minimums or is it even worse than that?

I'm thinking that, once you step up, your EV is now based on those bigger bets with a $100 or $25 min. unit and the much lower max bets from a step down would change all the math. For example, if you were even and then hit a bad variance and lost $10,000 playing at a $25 unit, you'd need to keep playing $25 unit (or more?) to get BACK to positive in the expected number of hands. If you dropped to $5 unit for a while (because that was the only game you could get to), you might never get back.

I hope that's not too confusing. I'm wondering if it's true that you can't go back and is this topic covered in one of the books? Thanks in advance to anyone who can help!!

**Three** · 03-17-2014, 01:45 PM

They let you bet more than table minimum.

**SiMi** · 03-17-2014, 01:49 PM

Right, but the table max is not high enough to keep the same spread and betting blacks at a $5 table gets a lot of attention.

**bjarg** · 03-17-2014, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by SiMi

This may be covered in BJA3 but I can't find it there or in any of the books I have...

There is a very good reason why you cant find it.Can you figure out what that reason is?

**White Guy** · 03-17-2014, 02:55 PM

Is this a serious ?

If so. Where do you come up with all these generalizations?

**FalseCount** · 03-19-2014, 01:06 PM

It's really disheartening how often people fail to answer good-natured questions on this forum.

You fear that you will experience bad variance when you play black and good variance when you play red, so had you been playing consistently, you would be even, but because conditions varied you are now significantly behind.
This really isn't something to fear, although theoretically possible.

Let's say you are playing black with an e.v. of $150/hr. You finish your session down $1000.
Now you are at a different joint, and you can only play red. You think, "Hey, maybe I should "save" my good variance for when I play big" but this is the fallacy. You never know when you will have good or bad variance, so you always play in terms of e.v.

If you have a good game at the red level, play it for $20/hr. If you have a good game at the black level play it for $150/hr. Play good games that your bankroll can afford. If you get consecutive negative swings when playing big, with positive swings while playing small, do you really think the cards at the big joint found out that the cards at the small joint had been good to you and realized they need to "even things out?" This is ludicrous. The games and the swings will even out to return you to e.v. if you are playing correctly.

**Three** · 03-19-2014, 01:18 PM

This will actually have a big affect on your variance. It will play havoc with the stats. KJ plays this way and I remember him commenting on the effects of doing so. KJ should be answering about the effects of playing different levels for different casinos so I will hope he weighs in although he said he won't be posting as much after he perceived, whether right or wrong, that some were denigrating his contributions here.

KJ kindly help this poster.

**FalseCount** · 03-19-2014, 04:43 PM

How does that make any logical sense?

Are you suggesting that if the OP wishes to reduce variance he should forego +EV red chip sessions and play consistently black?

Suppose we have two players.

Player 1 goes to a casino on a Tuesday and plays black booking a losing session, then on a thursday he goes to a different casino where he can only play red and books a win here. The following Tuesday he returns to the casino that allows black action and maybe books a win, maybe a loss. He repeats this pattern for a year.

Player 2 goes to a casino on a Tuesday and plays black booking a losing session, then on a thursday he goes to a different casino where he can only play red and sits out to reduce his variance whilst sacrificing EV. The following Tuesday he returns to the casino that allows black action and maybe books a win, maybe a loss. He repeats this pattern for a year.

Do you really think that player 2 is the wiser of the two, in any plausible sense?

OP, play to EV.

**Three** · 03-19-2014, 04:49 PM

Suppose player 3 plays the same spread and max bet for a year and isn't subject to the whims of which spreads and max bets he posts wins and losses to. Which player is most likely to be at expectation at the end of the year. Get it? Your N0 gets much higher by playing multiple spreads and games.

**winnawinna** · 03-19-2014, 05:08 PM

I say whats the difference what the amount is that you play? Your EV will always be the same % wise but your actual dollar amount will be lower if you choose to lower your unit amount. I think it comes down to a personal choice whether you choose to play red or blacks. We can go back and forth with "what if" scenarios but they are pointless in an otherwise unpredictable game. If you follow Kelly and play according to what your bankroll can afford, then it doesn't make a difference if you play red one day or black the next. If you win $500 playing red one session, it would be equivalent to winning $5000 if you played black. The important thing here is not so much dollar value, but the number of units won or lost for that session. If you lose $100 playing red or lose $2000 playing black, you still lost 20 units. What your starting minimum unit value is is your choice and whether it hurts you by lowering it or raising it is up for grabs.

**Three** · 03-19-2014, 05:35 PM

It isn't a debate. The stats go bonkers if you shift around your spread like that. Each individual max bet has a nice behaved stat profile and they all have the same N0 and proportion EV etc but when you mix the three chip levels together the predictability of where you will be goes out the window. The mixture will have very different stats. The N0 goes much higher due to the hands played black chipping have 4 times the influence of the hands played green chipping and 20 times the influence of those played red chipping. If you have bad luck black chipping for 1/2 your N0, and equally good luck red chipping for half your N0 you won't be at expectation as you would betting the same spread all the time. Like I said it plays havoc with the stats.

Originally Posted by winnawinna

If you win $500 playing red one session, it would be equivalent to winning $5000 if you played black.

First off red is one 20th of black. So it would have won $10,000 not $5,000. If it were the other side of the coin and your N0 was 20,000 rounds and you lose $10,000 playing black over 10,000 rounds and then you win $500 playing red the next 10,000 rounds you are not at $0 as the static spread and chip level would be but rather -$9,500. Playing kelly can maximize your potential but the stats through the overlap is not unchanged. Each resizing has its own stats but an overlap area viewing of two different sizes has very different stats than either of it's individual static parts. That is what the OP is asking about and KJ is very familiar with as he plays this way.

KJ where are you?

**SiMi** · 03-19-2014, 05:36 PM

FalseCount

Thanks for the input! That is very helpful. I appreciate the thought you put into your answer.

SiMi

**SiMi** · 03-19-2014, 05:44 PM

T3

Yes, you are correct. That is what I was worried about. I don't know why some other people thought it was not a serious question. It is a REAL issue for me! I was worried if I stepped up to black that I could not go back to red or green because of the massive variance differences. I didn't know how to phrase the question exactly, though. So, thanks for helping out!

Sadly, I'm still unclear. FalseCount and winnawinna say you just play the games you can when you can and take the wins and losses as they come. I hear that and that makes a lot of sense but I keep thinking that the math won't agree because of the possibility of getting behind on black. It seems weird, but I wondered if maybe keeping TWO BANKROLLS separate would work out over time? That's why I made the bankroll huge so there's no question about having enough bank to do something like this.

Anyway, I appreciate those who took the time to actually read and think about what I asked. I can't find an answer to this question in my books. I don't understand why some people are so quick to denigrate others here who are asking questions or posting observations, etc. I think it's a shame KJ decided to split but I can't really blame him...