Originally Posted by
DSchles
Nice answer. Let me explain just a little more. ROR is an absolute term. It means the risk (chance) that you will lose all your money devoted to playing. PERIOD!! It is we who decide to play around with that "pure" definition, by introducing goals. In the ROR chapter of BJA3, you will see that I furnish highly sophisticated double-barrier formulas, adapted from finance and options trading, that permit you to enunciate not only a ROR, but also the probability of reaching a goal before going bankrupt. And that goal can be anything! There is absolutely nothing special about doubling. NOTHING! So, why make that part of any definition? The answer is: you shouldn't. Why doubling? Why not winning 150% or tripling?
What happens when you double? Do you turn into a pumpkin? What changes? Again, the answer is ... nothing! But wait. You say, if I double my bank, I increase my stakes. Well, WHOA! Now, you've changed everything! And surely your ROR isn't what you think it is if you accept MY definition. Everyone should really go to Norm's online calculators of my many formulas and play with them, as I have done, for hours upon hours, to get a good sense and feel of this topic. One of the reasons that doubling appeals to people is something that I discuss in my chapter. "If they don't get you early, they are unlikely to ever get you at all," is, more or less, the way I described it. So, if you don't change your stakes, and you double your bank, the risk of losing it ALL bank from that point is very small indeed. So small, in fact, that the probabilities look very similar to the "pure" ROR numbers without any upper-bound goal or constraint.
I hope this clears up a few points.
Don
Bookmarks