See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: What is the ideal Risk of Ruin (ROR) %?

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    What is the ideal Risk of Ruin (ROR) %?

    스크린샷 2018-06-28 오.jpg


    Is ~10% ROR considered to be safe to avoid going bankrupt? What is the generally accepted ROR?

  2. #2
    Senior Member SteinMeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    129


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Planisphere View Post
    스크린샷 2018-06-28 오.jpg


    Is ~10% ROR considered to be safe to avoid going bankrupt? What is the generally accepted ROR?
    "Full Kelly" is 13.5%, and by definition is the RoR that maximizes bankroll growth.

    However, many pros use a fraction of Kelly. If your bank roll is non-replenishable, I personally feel your 10% is high. I'm not a pro, but I play at 3 to 4% RoR.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by SteinMeister View Post
    "Full Kelly" is 13.5%, and by definition is the RoR that maximizes bankroll growth.

    However, many pros use a fraction of Kelly. If your bank roll is non-replenishable, I personally feel your 10% is high. I'm not a pro, but I play at 3 to 4% RoR.
    There is a misconception of full Kelly and the 13.5%. 13.5% ROR is what you get if you begin with full Kelly and NEVER resize your bets, no matter how your bank fluctuates. But that is NOT what betting full Kelly means! Betting full Kelly is betting the full Kelly wager for whatever your CURRENT bankroll level is. And, in theory, you never go broke betting that way.

    So, it simply isn't true that players need to accept 13.5% ROR in order to grow their bankroll optimally.

    Don

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Hmm..so what Don means is that if I resize my bet according to my current bankroll (ex. narrow my bet spread if I'm going down the hill on bankroll), I wouldn't have to worry about going broke regardless of ROR?

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Planisphere View Post
    Hmm..so what Don means is that if I resize my bet according to my current bankroll (ex. narrow my bet spread if I'm going down the hill on bankroll), I wouldn't have to worry about going broke regardless of ROR?
    Yes, resize your bet for whatever the bankroll is at that moment.


    The ideal ROR is different for different people. One problem is oftentimes your max bets will be dependent on the casino and not your bankroll. A casino might be okay with $1k max bets, but nothing higher. If bankroll X is sufficient for that bet size, it doesn’t matter if your bankroll is 2X or 10X, because you’re still limited to max bets of $1k. But that’s obviously for when your bankroll is a larger number and not something like $5k or $50k, where your bet size is more dependent on the size of your bankroll and sometimes based on casino tolerance (for the most part).

    What’s your goal in APing? If you’re playing full time and as a main source of income, your desired ROR is going to be much lower than someone who may just be getting into it or just goes a few times a year and does it as a hobby or side income/investment. Someone with a replenishable bankroll is going to have different ideas on what a preferred ROR is compared to someone who has no other way to make income.
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Round about the 49th
    Posts
    146


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There are practical limitations to resizing: You play your first hand at say $25. Win or lose you are now re-calculating your next bet based on a new bankroll. e.g. starting BR = $10,000 = $25 wager lost. Next hand, BR=$9,975= $24.94 wager...uh oh...where did I put those pennies...The reason you never go broke is because when your BR is down to $1,000, you wager is now $2.50 and there is no place to play...When your BR is $100, you're betting $0.25. When you BR is a dollar, you pull out a file and grind a bit of copper dust onto the betting square. You never go broke, but, you call that playing?

    I play for kicks with a replenishable BR. I'm mindful of ROR, but also balance the fact that my theoretical hourly has to be enough to make it interesting for me, so I'm ok pressing my luck at 10% RoR for now. My long term goal is raise the hourly and reduce the RoR, but since I don't do this for a living, I can be a bit more aggressive looking to catch some positive V.

  7. #7


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    0%, who wants to go broke?

  8. #8
    Senior Member drunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,566
    Blog Entries
    1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Green View Post
    There are practical limitations to resizing: .
    I doubt there are many (or more likely any) who try to resize exactly according to what is called for. Or even very close to exactly. Making a strong approximation will get you so close to the same results that you would get if you resized with great exactitude that it's really not worth the effort.
    a rich man's foolish sayings pass as words of wisdom to the fools around him

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Round about the 49th
    Posts
    146


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Agreed. I was merely illustrating.

    I’ve not resized yet - up or down - but with a relatively small BR, would do so with a 50% gain or loss of BR.

    I suspect as BR grows, resizing occurs less frequently as a function of gross dollars and more as a function of RoR? That is, once you reach a critical BR size relative to the table limits and RoR approaches zero, resizing becomes irrelevant. As an extreme example (I’m riffing without calculating!), if you have a $1M BR and are playing a $25 game, it will take a very long time to move the RoR needle from near zero to, say 5% (a theoretical resizing trigger point).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Between 0.5-2% is my preferred risk.
    With higher risk of ruin I wouldn't play confidently...

    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Risk of Ruin
    By Three in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 08:54 AM
  2. dok: Risk of Ruin
    By dok in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 01:56 AM
  3. Nifty: Risk Of Ruin
    By Nifty in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-12-2004, 04:20 AM
  4. pm: Risk of Ruin
    By pm in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-21-2004, 08:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.