Last edited by Gramazeka; 03-11-2018 at 11:52 AM.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
The RoR statistic is moot for all discussion if you plan on resizing. RoR only means literal risk of going broke when you plan on never resizing.Originally Posted by DSchles
RoR as a statistic is an input into ramp generation is useful. For those that plan on resizing, basically everyone, RoR is a statistic. It defines how you will bet when you make a ramp.
So it is semantics to stick to literal RoR when you want to keep the purity of the former when nobody is using RoR literally. For everyone who uses RoR as a statistic RoR is understood to be based on the invalid assumption that you will never resize. They just use RoR to be a stat that doesn't have any bearing on the odds you will bust out because you will resize.
That all said if you are working on a small BR you may not be able to resize. RoR literally means the odds you will go broke. Unfortunately RoR is more set for you. But the good thing is RoR will get lower for you if your BR increases. If you are doing everything right you should start to shoe BR growth at some point. If not you might be that percentage that went broke. So it is the ability to size down while still making enough that transforms the usage of the term RoR from being a literal term or a statistic.
Maybe I am wrong but I call that semantics.
"The RoR statistic is moot for all discussion if you plan on resizing. RoR only means literal risk of going broke when you plan on never resizing."
That's one way to define it, but, of course, what you've written above is simply not true. I discuss in my book exactly how to calculate ROR if, for example, you plan to cut original stakes in half after losing half your bank. ROR can be enunciated in many ways, including stating ROR before, say, doubling the bank.
"So it is semantics to stick to literal RoR when you want to keep the purity of the former when nobody is using RoR literally. For everyone who uses RoR as a statistic RoR is understood to be based on the invalid assumption that you will never resize. They just use RoR to be a stat that doesn't have any bearing on the odds you will bust out because you will resize."
You're entitled to your opinion, but again, the above is simply false. I know many teams that stipulated ahead of time that they wouldn't ever resize during the play of a bank and would keep going either until a specified number of hours was reached, until they reached a monetary goal, or until the bank was completely lost.
"That all said if you are working on a small BR you may not be able to resize. RoR literally means the odds you will go broke. Unfortunately RoR is more set for you. But the good thing is RoR will get lower for you if your BR increases. If you are doing everything right you should start to shoe [see??] BR growth at some point. If not you might be that percentage that went broke. So it is the ability to size down while still making enough that transforms the usage of the term RoR from being a literal term or a statistic."
Three lines of utter drivel.
"Maybe I am wrong but I call that semantics."
Maybe I'm wrong, but with the great deal that you know about the game, ROR seems to be a topic that you are singularly ill equipped to discuss. But, it's your compulsion to feel obliged to comment on everything that rears its ugly head here. You would do well to just leave it alone. But, of course, you won't.
Don
This is an issue on this forum. There are excellent AP's but even though they play a particular count (multi-level) or a particular game (SD or 6Deck), a particular part the country (Reno for example) or play unrated, they seem to want to advise on everything. This then deteriorates the thread to nasty exchanges.
Part of a forum is public debate. There will be difference of opinion; however, debating the merits of opinion is what is warranted.
It is when it devolves into ad hominems and personal charges that the spirit of forum debate is lost.
Part of debate is to establish a position, assert (with evidence) why the position is preferred over all others, and consider whether the position should be adopted or rejected.
Mindlessly accepting/rejecting an opinion simply for the sake of emotional appeal is what plagues forums (especially this one.)
Giving advice is nothing to be ashamed of. It is when the merit of the advice is ignored and the individuals character is assassinated that logic is thrown out the window.
Well, I will defer to Don on dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s when it comes to terminology. But it is not the way the term is used in conjunction with the software in BJ. I think a good definition would be able to be used to fill the RoR field when generating a bet ramp. If you say RoR assumes you never resize and then redefine RoR for players that intend on resizing then which RoR should a player use as an input in ramp generation. Right or wrong I refuse to have such inconsistencies in the way I use a term. To me RoR always assumes you never resize and I always know that I will resize when necessary so RoR as it was originally defined and as a consistent definition gives no direct information on my odds of busting out, but is a very useful metric. If Don says that is wrong I am sure he is right. That doesn't mean I am going to make my posts an order of magnitude longer to keep true to a shifting multiple definitions or use explain something for each of the many different definitions of RoR while making a post. I just use RoR as a stat that makes an assessment of the chances that you will bust out for your BR and approach to the game based on the errant assumption that you will never resize your bets. I believe that is probably how most do it but I could be very wrong about that. If I am bear in mind how I use the term when I make comments unless you want posts explaining how all the ways defining RoR could affect your attack to the game every time I use the term. I am not shy about writing long posts so if that is what Don wants I can oblige him.
Wouldn't it be better to establish the definition of Risk of Ruin as the Risk Function itself? Rather than Don and you post endlessly about the semantic/wordy definition, use the universally accepted definition (found in BJA) based on the mathematical construct of risk with respect to expectation and volatility.
That's what I I think I do. I use RoR as a stat that, based on an assumption you will never resize, gives the stat for the odds you will bust out. Since you are most likely going to resize it is not actually the odds you will bust out because the assumption the figure is based on is false. The problem comes when you want the stat to be your likelihood of busting out. Then the inputs into the sims aren't your chances of busting out. And you have to invent alternate definitions of RoR, like Don did in his book, that depend on your resizing intentions that you may or may not actually follow in the future. It would be less confusing if the odds of busting out if you plan on resizing were defined as a separate stat in Don's book rather than giving RoR multiple meanings.
Again it is all semantics. Don decided on multiple meanings for RoR so it is hard to communicate ideas while keeping to the multiple definitions of RoR. I just stick to the definition where it (errantly) assumes you will never resize and doesn't actually indicate the chances you will bust out except for the rare cases that a player would bust out without resizing. Certainly if your BR is small enough you can't resize after a BR loss. If you have a large enough BR you will most likely never resize but then your RoR is essentially 0.
If the BR is too small, let's say $5000, it would be a waste of time to resize a smaller bet ramp, I'd rather make money faster by washing dishes than resize a small bet ramp.
If the BR is too big, casino tolerance doesn't allow us to bet more to generate higher EV and increase the RoR from roughly 0% to 13.5%.
I think resizing only make sense when the BR is between $10,000 to $100,000 for solo play. For a large sum of BR in use, RoR is only "adjustable" for BP team play.
I have another RoR question.
How does RoR calculation consider the last few actions before ruin?
Unlike tossing a coin that has two simple results, Blackjack has double down, split & resplit options.
With a set RoR, If I never resize my bet ramp, keep losing until I have $20 left, which means I have a much worse EV if I keep playing with no money to double or split, does the ROR calculation assume I keep betting regardless of having enough money to double or split?
In reality, I would stop betting if I don't have money to double or split, so I would never ruin my entire BR, at worst with a tiny amount left.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks