'Session' bankroll ROR

[Qh4Mate]

All the math is correct. Why do you care if you lose a session BR if you bring ten such ones for the trip? The ROR for the 150-hand session has little importance. You're going to lose the 40 units with regularity. You just aren't going to lose 10 of them on the short trip.

Thank you for taking time to confirm the math. It was gratifying to finally get it right. Also, for answering the question about the worth of calculating the 'session' bankroll. I suspected it was not important but nice to get a concurrence from an expert.

[BoSox]

Wrong in this instance is subjective. Loss stops lower your hourly EV, but they also lower ROR, so there is a justification for using them if you choose. But, when I do use them, I do not use them per session, I use them per shoe at >=-1 S.D. (units, not $$$) per shoe for the specific ramp I am using and number of players.

I ran a series of sims that utilized a session BR based on 1 SD (units) per shoe, 2 SD per shoe, and 3 SD per shoe. Hourly EV for 3 SD was higher than 2 SD, and hourly EV for 2 SD was higher than 1 SD. ROR for 3 SD was higher than 2 SD and, and ROR for 2 SD was higher than 1 SD. I also used the number of hands played in the session approximately equal to the number of hands played in a shoe by a player playing heads up with the dealer. I do not remember the exact numbers and would have to go through my notes to find them, but if I recall correctly, hourly EV for 1 SD was approximately 25% of what hourly EV was for 3 SD. ROR for 1 SD was approximately half of ROR for 3 SD. I may have also used a betting strategy that used stop counts at approximately -.5% disadvantage to the player, but off the top of my head I do not remember for sure. I initially ran the sims with a win goal or win stop, but those results were disastrous and greatly reduced hourly EV…consequently I no longer play with a win goal.

I believe that ROR was reduced using 1 SD BR because stopping play at that point increased the likelihood of finding “golden shoes”…those shoes where you don’t lose many bets, including your large bets. Sort of like “weeding out” the “beat down” shoes. I think I used a 10B sample size for each sim.

You are not kidding when you say wrong in this instance is subjective. Subjective to say the least. In my mind, your two posts belong in the disadvantage forum as I agree with what the Refinery said on this one. You want a correct point of view on this subject read post #21 in this thread even though it was in response to another poster, it also applies to what you wrote. Here it is again:

All the math is correct. Why do you care if you lose a session BR if you bring ten such ones for the trip? The ROR for the 150-hand session has little importance. You're going to lose the 40 units with regularity. You just aren't going to lose 10 of them on the short trip.

Don

Now, Don's above quote is right in line with what you always write at the end of each post regarding Don. Repeated again:

"This is a discipline thing. You either do it right or you don't do it at all."

Don Schlesinger, pg 2, "Blackjack Attack: Playing the Pros' Way", 3rd Edition.

[BoSox]

They also provide possible cover options. Take the player that has a favorite store that he likes to bring his wife to because they like going to the steakhouse for dinner. The player is willing to buy longevity with the cost of reduced hourly EV. For the sake of discussion, lets say the game the player prefers to play there he can play with a relatively modest spread that has a relatively modest (2/3 unit) hourly EV when using a 1 SD loss stop. Let's say 1SD is 10 units with that player's spread so he only buys in for 10 units when he plays there and walks if he loses his buy in knowing that he is ahead at this location long term and no one considers him a threat yet, or even gives him a second look, because he always buys in for 10 units and walks if he loses it...and every once in a while he "gets lucky" with a nice win...like many other non AP players. So this player also understands optimal play, but wants to be able to play at this store for a long time without playing a losing game. Is this player "wrong" for not playing optimally at this location?

Someone who plays that way is not playing with any kind of an edge at all. You should be careful what you say on a website.

[BoSox]

Let's say 1SD is 10 units with that player's spread so he only buys in for 10 units

I think that I am following now, you are actually buying in for ten of your own max bets is that correct? Although, let's not get off track and turn this into sessions standard deviations stop losses. You are in fact talking about per SHOE SD stop losses correct?

[BoSox]

Yes, shoe SD, not session...but to be fair the "shoe" is an approximation based on the average number of cards used in per hand, accounting for head to head play with 75% pen of the 312 cards on a 6 deck shoe...so it is not precise, but cloee enough for my purpose when I do it. You got me curious now, so just to satisfy myself I'm still going to do it over.

Hold on, now you are saying head to head play? If that is the case you are changing your position from what you previously said. Which is:

"

Wrong in this instance is subjective. Loss stops lower your hourly EV, but they also lower ROR, so there is a justification for using them if you choose. But, when I do use them, I do not use them per session, I use them per shoe at >=-1 S.D. (units, not $$$) per shoe for the specific ramp I am using and number of players."

[BoSox]

I think that I am following now, you are actually buying in for ten of your own max bets is that correct?

Sorry, was that correct?

[BoSox]

Enough of this back and forth you should explain the following quote you made.

"

I believe that ROR was reduced using 1 SD BR because stopping play at that point increased the likelihood of finding “golden shoes”…those shoes where you don’t lose many bets, including your large bets. Sort of like “weeding out” the “beat down” shoes. I think I used a 10B sample size for each sim."

[BoSox]

My wife was kicking my ass at dinner because I kept looking at this.

I am glad someone is kicking your ass, maybe she is the real blackjack player of the family.

We lose the largest number of units on shoes with max bet counts where we lose most or all of our bets...including max bets ("beat down shoes"). We win the largest number of units on shoes with max bet counts where we win most or all of our bets...including max bets ("golden shoes"). The shoes that bring us closest to ruin are the beat down shoes. All beat down shoes must lose 1 shoe SD (=-1 shoe SD) before they can reach beat down shoe status. If we do not play past that point, we will never play a beat down shoe...we will still have losing shoes, just not beat down shoes. All of our losing shoes will be <= -1 shoe SD. The more losses we have that are >=-1 shoe SD the closer we come to ruin. The more loses we have that are >=-2 shoe SD the closer we come to ruin. The more losses we have that are >=-3 shoe SD the even closer we come to ruin. By not playing in shoes with -2 and -3 shoe SD we are reducing our ROR and have "weeded out" the "beat down shoes" by using a loss stop of -1 shoe SD. Hourly EV increases with -2 and -3 shoe SD loss stops because SD does nothing to identify which shoes that had losses at these levels will turn around and contined play might produce wins to recover lost units. So continued play in a shoe past -1 shoe SD, -2 and -3 shoe SD shoes, will have higher hourly EV, but also higher ROR.

This is just the beginning of my "shoe" theory. If you can not grasp or accept it, there is no way you will grasp or accept the entire concept. I can not prove or disprove the theory because current simulation software does not have the capability to address the additional undisclosed concepts of my theory.

No one knows until a shoe is completed how that shoe will all turn out. All the card counter can do is bet by the actual true count each and every hand. Any thoughts by the player that he is playing in "golden shoes or beat down shoes" some kind of predictable pattern is preposterous, to say the least, and his theory does not belong on this board period. What happens when the player reaches a negative SD of one percent for that shoe with eighty cards left before the cut card comes out? Does he just take a break and wongout leaving a high TC opportunity? A true count of +5 is a TC of +5 regardless of when it happens and to even think of walking out of such a situation because you are thinking you are playing into a beat down shoe is not a true AP player but a voodoo player. Players MUST be bankrolled properly at all times to avoid any kind of outlandish superstitious thinking to get into their heads.

Rather than argue about it any further, when one of the computers I run sims with finishes its current project I will use it to reconstruct my prior sims, reduce the methodolgy to writing and send it to you so you can replicate your own sims. These sims will support my position that a loss stop based on shoe SD can lower ROR; I've already done them, but I run so many sims I do not remember exactly when and what all the particulars were. I will have to find my notes on them and reconstruct them, then I can send you the info need to replicate to satisfy yourself that the results are valid.

Please use your time reading up on having a proper bankroll as I do not want to see your sims thank you.

[BoSox]

No, 10 units, not 10 max bets...but I will not rebuy at only the one location. I don't play that way at other stores because of the lower hourly EV. At other stores I use stops based on the count regardless of units lost/won.

Just go to that casino when you want to eat a steak dinner and avoid playing altogether.

[refinery]

Just go to that casino when you want to eat a steak dinner and avoid playing altogether.

Finally we agree on something. The fact that Wave gives it a pseudo-mathematical sound to it all makes it that much worse. I was hoping Don would look at one of the Wave posts and chime in, but he either didn't see it or thinks it's obvious hogwash not worth his time.

[Jabberwocky]

The ladder(sic)

[DSchles]

I was hoping Don would look at one of the Wave posts and chime in, but he either didn't see it or thinks it's obvious hogwash not worth his time.

None of the above! OK, my turn. I think you guys are talking at cross-purposes. The "traditionalists" see any attempt to employ stop losses (generally, a "voodoo" term) as, well, ridiculous, while the "iconoclast" wants to show a very specific and particular application of using stop-loss to minimize one single parameter, namely ROR for a single shoe. And, I think it does.

Forget about one-, two- or three- s.d. considerations for stopping the play of a shoe. Consider this, instead: Play one hand and quit!! Is there anyone on the board who doesn't understand that I have just enunciated a way to make my ROR ZERO for that shoe? Of course there isn't. So, why should it surprise anyone that ANY procedure or algorithm that would prematurely cause you to stop playing a shoe would lead to reduced ROR for that particular shoe?

I could enunciate 100 different approaches all of which would either reduce my ROR for a shoe or make it zero, including, "when I'm down to my last bet, quit without putting it on the felt." That makes my ROR ZERO for that shoe. If, instead, I keep playing with that one unit, does everyone understand that my ROR is VERY substantial?

So, unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about. Over and over, Wave has stated that his approach will hurt his e.v., and that is surely true. But, for a single shoe, it is virtually impossible to be ruined for that shoe if you don't continue to play through all the very high count/high bet situations. And, it seems to me that this is all Wave is claiming. Were he to claim, instead, that his overall, lifetime ROR is lowered by playing this way, then we would yell "Foul" and explain that this is surely a different story and is not the case.

Your turn!

Don

[BoSox]

Originally Posted by Wave


I ran a series of sims that utilized a session BR based on 1 SD (units) per shoe, 2 SD per shoe, and 3 SD per shoe. Hourly EV for 3 SD was higher than 2 SD, and hourly EV for 2 SD was higher than 1 SD. ROR for 3 SD was higher than 2 SD and, and ROR for 2 SD was higher than 1 SD. I also used the number of hands played in the session approximately equal to the number of hands played in a shoe by a player playing heads up with the dealer. I do not remember the exact numbers and would have to go through my notes to find them, but if I recall correctly, hourly EV for 1 SD was approximately 25% of what hourly EV was for 3 SD. ROR for 1 SD was approximately half of ROR for 3 SD. I may have also used a betting strategy that used stop counts at approximately -.5% disadvantage to the player, but off the top of my head I do not remember for sure. I initially ran the sims with a win goal or win stop, but those results were disastrous and greatly reduced hourly EV…consequently I no longer play with a win goal.

I believe that ROR was reduced using 1 SD BR because stopping play at that point increased the likelihood of finding “golden shoes”…those shoes where you don’t lose many bets, including your large bets. Sort of like “weeding out” the “beat down” shoes. I think I used a 10B sample size for each sim.

I think that we can sum this all up by saying that your session bankrolls are apparently way too small for the wagering you are making.