When should you cut your bet size after a series of losses?

[DSchles]

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.

It's more or less academic at that point, no? If you start with, say, $50,000, and you're down to your last $20, you're effectively ruined whether you can double or not. You're not going to build your $20 into another bankroll, are you? So, you can bet $10, so that you can double, or you can "splurge" and bet the $20; it makes no difference. You're done.

Don

[BoSox]

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.

Anyone, is there a nugget in there?

[Freightman]

Anyone, is there a nugget in there?

Nope

[Three]

Anyone, is there a nugget in there?

Only to point out the absurdity of using RoR as a stat in simulation and have a second definition of RoR to make RoR still mean the chances of busting out if the assumption you never resize is invalid. All that does is muddy the waters and make communication difficult and make a need to be more wordy to keep posts accurate for a changing definition.

The idea of keeping a stat that involves all possible future resizing in order to force it to mean the chances of busting out is a bit ridiculous. You will never resize at those exact points. We are not computers. And to look at RoR as being a constant as you go forward from the point of assessment is wrong. You are one player experiencing the future as it happens. Each BR change has an effect on your current RoR. What your RoR was at some past point that you assessed it is now moot.