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

[KJ]

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.

Thank you for thinking of me T3. Actually, I don't play different levels like I believe the poster to be talking about. I do play different minimum and maximum wagers, but my unit wager, the true definition of unit....or amount placed per increment of advantage is the same. I other words, when I have .5% advantage, all my wagers are the same. When I have 1% advantage, all my wagers are the same. When I have 2% advantage all my wagers are the same.

What differs are my minimum wagers, which is a fraction of my unit and is usually table minimum, in shoe games, a little higher in DD. The second thing that differs is my max bet, which basically means I cap my ramp and spread, at different points, based on what I perceive as tolerance levels of different stores.

The second part or different max bets is the part that really effects variance. There is definitely a price to pay for doing it this way in terms of variance. Short term variance is exaggerated, but it will all work out in the long run if you have the patience and play enough to get there. I am willing to pay that price because longevity is probably my top priority at the present time.

As much as my methods play havoc with variance, what I believe the OP to be talking about, playing some games at red chip level, with a spread and ramp spreading red to green and other games at a higher level with an entirely different spread and ramp spreading green to black, would be 10 times worse. It could just devastate variance to the point that 'long term', is almost too long term to recover. I mean 'long term' in that situation could be a decade of regular play.

[Marvin]

How is this any different than playing with 2 different hypothetical bankrolls, 1 of say 500k, and one of 25k?
Keep track of them independently.

The play you do with the smaller bank should have no effect on the play you do with your larger bank.
It's the same as if you gave 25k to your little brother to red chip; his results would have no affect on your play to the big bank.

The big cost is the opportunity cost of wasting time red chipping rather than playing to the full bank roll and the risk of exposure since you'd still be spreading.
The last thing you want it to get data based over a $100 max bet game.

If you have a 500k bank, you can justify travel expenses to areas that will tolerate your action.

[SiMi]

KJ

Thanks for the details...

If I get it right, you are careful to bet the same amount in actual dollars regardless of the table min. you're playing at when your edge is X% and a larger amount in actual dollars at 2X% edge, regardless of the table minimum, etc. So, if you're playing at a $25 table or a $100 table, it doesn't matter when you have the edge because you will bet the same amount in dollars at the $25 table as you will at the $100 table.

For example, assume your bet ramp says to bet 4 units when you have 1% edge and say your unit is $50. So, at 1% edge, you will bet $200 ( 4 units x $50 per unit = $200). You will bet $200 whether you are at a $25 table or a $100 table. This way, you are always betting the correct amount in real dollars for the edge you have. (Table max should not be a problem at $25 or greater tables but could be a problem at $5 tables depending on your spread, assuming a $50 unit.)

However, when you do NOT have an edge, you bet less than a unit if possible. So, at a $25 table with a $50 unit, you'd bet $25 when you don't have the edge.

Also, you will lower your max bet at less than ideal (or less than your bankroll can handle) in order to increase longevity depending on the situation. This lowers your spread so it hurts.

If I have this right, this was NOT what I was describing but is, nevertheless, very interesting and helpful. I was describing moving up to a whole new level (red to green or green to black) with the same spreads and then wanting to go back down to a lower level in a smaller or whimpier place that you wanted to play for other reasons. Sounds like my fears were justified that you could get a whopper variance...

[FalseCount]

How is this any different than playing with 2 different hypothetical bankrolls, 1 of say 500k, and one of 25k?
Keep track of them independently.

The play you do with the smaller bank should have no effect on the play you do with your larger bank.
It's the same as if you gave 25k to your little brother to red chip; his results would have no affect on your play to the big bank.

The big cost is the opportunity cost of wasting time red chipping rather than playing to the full bank roll and the risk of exposure since you'd still be spreading.
The last thing you want it to get data based over a $100 max bet game.

If you have a 500k bank, you can justify travel expenses to areas that will tolerate your action.

Finally somebody who actually understands the issue and can explain it clearly and concisely. Well done marvin.

[Three]

I would have explained a 2 BR approach if I thought those that would do this have a big enough BR to have 2 BRs or 3 BRs if they are playing all 3 chip values. Like I said each as an individual is fine but overlapping them your N0 goes through the roof. Like KJ said it would take more than a decade to be in the long run not less than a year. Maybe a sim guy might want to demonstrate so the no big deal crowd would get it. A N0 and EV for play with one spread and a N0 and EV for your combined play for equally split in terms of shoes of proportional spreads of $5 min bet, $25 min bet and $100 min bet forgetting the difference in game quality you will see on the lower end. I hope Norm's software can support such a sim with like 10 shoes of one spread then 10 shoes of the next etc for billions of rounds. I think those that think it is no big deal will be quite surprised.

[muckz]

I would have explained a 2 BR approach if I thought those that would do this have a big enough BR to have 2 BRs or 3 BRs if they are playing all 3 chip values. Like I said each as an individual is fine but overlapping them your N0 goes through the roof. Like KJ said it would take more than a decade to be in the long run not less than a year. Maybe a sim guy might want to demonstrate so the no big deal crowd would get it. A N0 and EV for play with one spread and a N0 and EV for your combined play for equally split in terms of shoes of proportional spreads of $5 min bet, $25 min bet and $100 min bet forgetting the difference in game quality you will see on the lower end. I hope Norm's software can support such a sim with like 10 shoes of one spread then 10 shoes of the next etc for billions of rounds. I think those that think it is no big deal will be quite surprised.

I don't think it can.

[KJ]

Well, I read Mr Marvin’s and Falsecount’s response concerning separate bankrolls for playing these separate levels last night, and I wasn’t going to comment. But hell, during my travels and play today, I found myself thinking on this topic all day, and I just can’t help myself, so forgive me.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but I think this is about the stupidest idea I have heard of. Two bankrolls? I mean isn’t it all the same money? So separate bankrolls makes no sense to me. If you really have that strong a desire to play completely separate levels like this and again we are talking separate levels all the way around, from minimums, to true units (placed per increment of advantage), to max bets, then you do it all from the same bankroll. Just know that you are really fooling with the possibility of extreme variance.

I go back to Falsecounts earlier post, where he considers the possibility that variance is kind to you every time you play the lower stakes but kicks your ass each time you play higher stakes. For sake of argument, lets take it to the extreme, using the bankrolls that Marvin suggested. After 3 months of regular play at both levels, you have grown your small bankroll (little brother) by 50%, while at the same time, playing higher stakes you have lost 50% of your bigger bankroll. Ok, you have made $12,500, while losing $250,000, just because you played different levels. Had all your play been at the same level, you would have be dead even instead of $237,500 in the hole.

Now yes this is an extreme situation, but the thing is this game has enough variance involved without going out and looking for and creating more, and that’s what you are doing by playing different levels simultaneously. Again, I am just expressing my thoughts, as a lowly salamander with very little brain, so what do I know. If you want to play different levels and create extra, extreme variance, go for it.

When all is said and done, the thought that makes up my signature, that in the end, it will all come together still applies. But you could create a situation where you turn that ‘longterm’ that it will take to catch up, into years. Most players are looking to shorten their N0, not extend it.

[FalseCount]

I go back to Falsecounts earlier post, where he considers the possibility that variance is kind to you every time you play the lower stakes but kicks your ass each time you play higher stakes. For sake of argument, lets take it to the extreme, using the bankrolls that Marvin suggested. After 3 months of regular play at both levels, you have grown your small bankroll (little brother) by 50%, while at the same time, playing higher stakes you have lost 50% of your bigger bankroll. Ok, you have made $12,500, while losing $250,000, just because you played different levels. Had all your play been at the same level, you would have be dead even instead of $237,500 in the hole.

KJ, your thought pattern is fundamentally flawed, bordering on civilian logic.

As mentioned in my earlier post, if you were to sit out all the red chip "little brother" games, you would simply be behind the full $250,000. The red chip play isn't "infringing" on the black chip play. If we followed your line of thinking, then maybe we should remove blackjack apps from our phones, for in playing a couple hours here and there all our good blackjack variance might be wasted on fiat virtual money! The horror!

Let me know if this still isn't clear.

[Three]

KJ, your thought pattern is fundamentally flawed, bordering on civilian logic.

As mentioned in my earlier post, if you were to sit out all the red chip "little brother" games, you would simply be behind the full $250,000. The red chip play isn't "infringing" on the black chip play. If we followed your line of thinking, then maybe we should remove blackjack apps from our phones, for in playing a couple hours here and there all our good blackjack variance might be wasted on fiat virtual money! The horror!

Let me know if this still isn't clear.

Wow, you talk about someone that totally misses the point. The point isn't the actual results of the example but to see the effect on N0 and variance you are introducing into your overall play. The long term takes long enough without adding to another significant digit to your N0. If you won't live long enough to reach your N0 aren't you just gambling rather than playing with an advantage. To say no would be to admit you fall in the same group with those that learned to count but learned nothing about money management and made it almost certain that they will bust their entire BR even though they are technically playing with an advantage.

[Marvin]

Well, I read Mr Marvin’s and Falsecount’s response concerning separate bankrolls for playing these separate levels last night, and I wasn’t going to comment. But hell, during my travels and play today, I found myself thinking on this topic all day, and I just can’t help myself, so forgive me.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but I think this is about the stupidest idea I have heard of. Two bankrolls? I mean isn’t it all the same money? So separate bankrolls makes no sense to me. If you really have that strong a desire to play completely separate levels like this and again we are talking separate levels all the way around, from minimums, to true units (placed per increment of advantage), to max bets, then you do it all from the same bankroll. Just know that you are really fooling with the possibility of extreme variance.

I go back to Falsecounts earlier post, where he considers the possibility that variance is kind to you every time you play the lower stakes but kicks your ass each time you play higher stakes. For sake of argument, lets take it to the extreme, using the bankrolls that Marvin suggested. After 3 months of regular play at both levels, you have grown your small bankroll (little brother) by 50%, while at the same time, playing higher stakes you have lost 50% of your bigger bankroll. Ok, you have made $12,500, while losing $250,000, just because you played different levels. Had all your play been at the same level, you would have be dead even instead of $237,500 in the hole.

Now yes this is an extreme situation, but the thing is this game has enough variance involved without going out and looking for and creating more, and that’s what you are doing by playing different levels simultaneously. Again, I am just expressing my thoughts, as a lowly salamander with very little brain, so what do I know. If you want to play different levels and create extra, extreme variance, go for it.

When all is said and done, the thought that makes up my signature, that in the end, it will all come together still applies. But you could create a situation where you turn that ‘longterm’ that it will take to catch up, into years. Most players are looking to shorten their N0, not extend it.

KJ,

Let me begin by saying that I have the utmost respect for what you've been able to achieve as an AP. I have learned a great deal from your posts in the past, and I in no way think any less of you for your choice of making most of your EV from counting (I'm assuming that's what you were implying with your 'salamander brain' comment).

I hope that your thinking about this thread didn't lead to unnecessary distractions.

Ultimately, sims can answer the question conclusively, but from a theoretical standpoint, I'm with FalseCount on this one. In a lopsided scenario involving one 500k bankroll for black chip play and one 25k bankroll for red chip play, the red chip play is essentially meaningless noise. All meaningful results will come from blackchip play. Any significantly increased variance or significantly increased time to reach the longterm essentially stems from reduced hours of black chip play in favour of red chip play. Anything else seems to veer into voodoo territory of streaks and the gambler's fallacy.

I made the point of opportunity costs clear in the my post. I don't know why anyone with a 500k BR would want to red chip for $15/hr in EV; I personally think that it would be a waste of time and lead to unnecessary exposure, but I don't think that such play would have any meaningful effect on the bankroll. I was simply answering the question from a theoretical standpoint.
We simply don't know when the next great or horrendous shoe will happen.

A couple of other asides:

1) It's not necessarily the same bankroll. My AP bankroll is not the entirety of my liquid assets, I could easily carve out another chunk for other play if I so chose. I usually play with a partner to a shared bankroll, but if I had an extended solo play opportunity in significantly different conditions, I would likely use a different bucket of cash. Win or lose, this play would not affect the shared bankroll.
From your posts, it seems that for longevity reasons you're playing at a level below of what your savings would allow. You're essentially playing to a partial bankroll, and I'm sure if a different investment opportunity arose, you would be able to devote funds to it without impacting your effective AP bankroll in any way.

2) On a completely different tangent than what OP was asking, there's an interesting camouflage idea that involves using 2 or more different hypothetical bankrolls, betting ramps, etc.
Imagine that you have 2 or 3 different bankrolls and related ramps, and bet with the count, but randomly select which bankroll you will use each round. Your betting pattern would essentially seem random to even very experienced surveillance crew.

Marv

[bjarg]

2) On a completely different tangent than what OP was asking, there's an interesting camouflage idea that involves using 2 or more different hypothetical bankrolls, betting ramps, etc.
Imagine that you have 2 or 3 different bankrolls and related ramps, and bet with the count, but randomly select which bankroll you will use each round. Your betting pattern would essentially seem random to even very experienced surveillance crew.

Are you being serious?
This thread looks like the twilight zone meets blackjack ap world.

[Bodarc]

To me (not being a math genius) it seems it all boils down to average bet (spread) and the win rate, SD, SCORE, N0 etc for that average bet. If you play 1000 hands at avg bet (using your spread) of $ 400 and 100 hands at avg bet likewise at $ 10 lets say your avg bet is $ 365. Then your Win rate, SD, N0 etc would be based on win rate, # of hands played and avg bet of $ 365. Your N0 would be based on this also and would not change appreciatively. You have 1 bankroll, it is just your avg bet that is changing.

[Marvin]

Are you being serious?
This thread looks like the twilight zone meets blackjack ap world.

I am referring to multi-tiered betting. Obviously you don't need separate bankrolls, just different ramps that you alternate between.