See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 33

Thread: Risk of Ruin (ROR) clarifications

  1. #1


    7 out of 7 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Risk of Ruin (ROR) clarifications

    I had really hoped to avoid this. Heaven knows we don't need another treatise on a subject that's been beaten to death. Chapter 8 of BJA3 contains 39 pages on the topic, but, apparently, that's not enough for some people. So, with apologies for stating concepts that have been discussed, explained, and elucidated a hundred times, here's one more attempt to put the subject to bed -- one which, I know, will nonetheless be doomed to failure. And, of course, I apologize for the length.

    There are any number of perfectly valid approaches to and definitions of ROR. Now, I know that comes as a great shock to Three, but I don't exist to make him happy.

    One definition, which is extremely helpful for comparative purposes, which is always a valid goal -- and is what made SCORE so popular -- is to assume a starting bankroll and bet scheme, and then to further assume that one continues to play in that specified manner until one of three things happens: you win all the money in the world, you die trying, or you go broke before you die. And that (mathematical, if not entirely realistic) approach is both valid and popular, because it isn't nuanced; it's very absolute and unambiguous as to how you'll play. It is, of course, then infuriating when someone feels the necessity to point out 72 times that no one really plays this way, as if we are all too stupid to understand the obvious. But the metric is nonetheless extremely useful because we don't have to deal with 65 other ways that we might decide to play, each with its subsequent DIFFERENT risk of ruin. We then engender a ROR Tower of Babel that absolutely no one understands.

    Of COURSE there are other definitions of ROR!! To imply that I have ever stated otherwise is sheer lunacy. Page 115 explains, in detail, one such concept: ROR if you decide ahead of time that, should you lose half your original stake, you will cut back to half stakes from that point on, but then not do it again. A valid approach? Sure. One of hundreds. Here's another: define ROR as the probability of losing your entire stake before, say, doubling it. Teams are fond of this expression of ROR, because, often, they set a goal of doubling a bank, before losing it, as a threshold for breaking that bank and distributing profits and/or starting a new venture.

    Then there is trip ROR. Define the possibility of tapping out not if you play forever but only for a prescribed number of hands or hours. And then there are the double-barrier formulas: ROR given a certain amount of time to play OR goal to hit, or both, before stopping.

    Then there's the ROR associated with playing less than full Kelly. Now, we have RORs for all different Kelly fractions! And, some will decide not to resize while playing this way, because they've already taken one precaution of avoiding full Kelly, which they deem too risky, so they feel they don't need to also stipulate that they'll resize along the way. Or not! And the beat goes on.

    Want to express ROR as meaning ANY or all of the above? Be my guest! Knock yourself out. Who ever said otherwise? But when you're writing a book and creating hundreds upon hundreds of charts (think chapter 10, as just a start), you don't try to incorporate eight different definitions of ROR and apply them all simultaneously -- unless you're trying to create the maximum amount of confusion possible. So, we use a standard, SINGLE definition as a convention -- one that is simple to understand, simple to calculate, and doesn't lead to 100 different interpretations. (The same may be said for the edges we quote for BS. Technically, they're all "silly," because no one plays one hand off the top and then faces a fresh shuffle for each ensuing hand! But the edges we quote are USEFUL, because a) they're relatively easy to calculate, and b) they create a convention, such that, for the same game, we're not quoting 28 different BS edges!)

    I know this post won't end the discussion, because, well, that's what people here are best at: dragging out the obvious ad infinitum and especially ad nauseam. Apologies to those who already have known all of the above for a long time. To the others, well, best I say no more.

    Don

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Thanks for the help Don. I know you know I am not stupid even though you seem to enjoy making me look stupid.
    I am not afraid to look stupid if it means learning something in the process.

    You have criticized me in the past on a few things. If you don't mind explaining why you needed to do so I would appreciate it. Bear in mind unless I state otherwise RoR is following its simple definition.

    1) Calling RoR a snapshot in time looking forward from that point but understanding RoR changes as your BR changes. Each new BR will have its own snapshot RoR looking forward from that point.

    2) Saying keeping a constant RoR of 13.5% creates optimal BR growth. Is it not clear that constant RoR means continual resizing.

    I will stop there. Are you just hung up on no matter how you use the term it must mean the odds that you will bust out, so the way you use it must keep that idea intact? I feel I understand RoR as good as anyone. I just don't understand the way you demand that things be expressed. I just like to use RoR to mean the odds you will bust out if you never resize. It is a very useful stat. I have resized a at least a half dozen times and know it never literally means the odds I will bust out the way I use the term. Is my sticking to one definition when using the term causing me to use the term wrong? I don't see how that should be possible. I would appreciate the direct answers you give everyone else but seem to enjoy not giving to me. I get where that comes from and maybe I deserve a bit of it.

    Thanks for your help.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    As it applies to blackjack, risk of ruin is the risk of losing all the money in a bank. Period. You may now describe or enunciate how you are going to bet that money and incorporate that scheme in your definition of that ONE particular kind of ROR. For example, ROR when applying full Kelly and without ever resizing. MUST the definition of ROR be ONLY that and that alone? NO! But, it is a popular one, because, like SCORE, or off-the-top BS edge, it expresses a very helpful metric that all can use as a basis for comparison.

    It is NOT useful to remind us that, each time our current bankroll changes, we now have a new ROR. That is a waste of time and states the painfully obvious. Each time you win or lose a bet, you'd like to remind us that our ROR has changed from the original one. Stop reminding us! The concept is mind-numbingly uninteresting.

    My direct answer to you is that at no time have I ever stated or written that the one definition of ROR that many find very helpful as a comparative tool is the only possible meaning of the term. It is painfully clear that that simply isn't true, and it would be sad if it were, because then, expressing all the varieties of risks of ruin in my previous post would be for naught, as apparently, they would all be expressing some OTHER concept that isn't the one, genuine, only permissible, risk of ruin! Happily, no one has ever claimed that to be the case ... except you!

    What name would you give to all the others? Risk of losing all our money, before doubling the bank? Risk of tapping out after resizing when losing half the bank? Risk of going broke on a trip? But, God forbid, not risk of ruin, for any of those, because the term is reserved to mean something else? Sorry, you're the only one who thinks that way. I never insisted, as I did with SCORE, that ROR be used in one manner only. SCORE is different. I CREATED it. I DEFINED it. I coined a term and a concept. I did not create risk of ruin, and I have no right to insist that the term be used in one and only one manner. Nor did I ever use it in only one manner, which is also clear, from my writings.

    Clear?

    Don

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    As it applies to blackjack, risk of ruin is the risk of losing all the money in a bank. Period.
    Thanks Don. If that is how everyone understands it I will start using it that way. I assume you realize I have used RoR in the one definition sense and called all other applications to RoR the chance of busting out. I think that is clearer but in communication convention is important. I don't dictate that.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    What name would you give to all the others? Risk of losing all our money, before doubling the bank? Risk of tapping out after resizing when losing half the bank? Risk of going broke on a trip? But, God forbid, not risk of ruin, for any of those, because the term is reserved to mean something else?
    Things would be less ambiguous if they were done that way but apparently they aren't.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I never insisted, as I did with SCORE, that ROR be used in one manner only. SCORE is different. I CREATED it. I DEFINED it. I coined a term and a concept.
    I hope you appreciate those that try to keep to your wishes about SCORE. I have to admit I try hard to always use c-SCORE when the SCORE standards don't apply but sometimes I am just thinking and typing too fast to get them all.

    Thanks for your time Don. I appreciate it. I will try to use the standard conventions concerning RoR in the interest of effective communication.
    Last edited by Three; 04-06-2018 at 10:29 AM. Reason: typos and pronoun reference

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Is my sticking to one definition when using the term causing me to use the term wrong? I don't see how that should be possible. I would appreciate the direct answers you give everyone else but seem to enjoy not giving to me. I get where that comes from and maybe I deserve a bit of it.

    So humbling. A classic Three quote, that deserves to be framed and stood on a mantle piece.
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-06-2018 at 03:58 AM.

  6. #6


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Three, in your whole entire life, while playing Spanish 21 did you ever wear the same underdrawers two days in a row without first washing them? If yes you likely became itchy on the second day of wearing the same fruit of the looms and most likely thought about the bins "not laundry bags like the rest of us" you use for counting. Knowing that you have no bins left to use, there was only one logical place left to count the cards, the nutter butters.
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-06-2018 at 06:53 AM.

  7. #7


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Three, in your whole entire life, while playing Spanish 21 did you ever wear the same underdrawers two days in a row without first washing them? If yes you likely became itchy on the second day of wearing the same fruit of the looms and most likely thought about the bins "not laundry bags like the rest of us" you use for counting. Knowing that you have no bins left to use, there was only one logical place left to count the cards, the nutter butters.
    Classic story
    American Airlines lost our luggage, destined for New York area - it was May, 90 outside with high humidity. 3 days went by. I went to to baggage claim at Newark airport. With my hands on the counter, I was jumping up, swinging side to side. Clerk asks me what I'm doing - I reply - haven't changed shorts in 3 days, getting kind of sticky down there.

  8. #8


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Classic story
    American Airlines lost our luggage, destined for New York area - it was May, 90 outside with high humidity. 3 days went by. I went to to baggage claim at Newark airport. With my hands on the counter, I was jumping up, swinging side to side. Clerk asks me what I'm doing - I reply - haven't changed shorts in 3 days, getting kind of sticky down there.
    I knew it would take only about five or six posts before a serious discussion about ROR turned into a thread about how many consecutive days posters wear their underwear.

    Classic indeed. Only here.

    Don

  9. #9


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I knew it would take only about five or six posts before a serious discussion about ROR turned into a thread about how many consecutive days posters wear their underwear.

    Classic indeed. Only here.

    Don
    Join the party. Loosen your belt. Get rid of the wedgie, and show us your wild side.

  10. #10


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I knew it would take only about five or six posts before a serious discussion about ROR turned into a thread about how many consecutive days posters wear their underwear.

    Classic indeed. Only here.

    Don
    Actually Don, with regard to this thread, I have to respectfully disagree with the gist of your comment. After your two posts, nos. one and three (how fitting), there was nothing more need be said about RoR. There was no way that anything posted afterward in this thread, on this specific forum, would be anything other than mindless dribble, or users venting through humor (however sophomoric they may be).

    And we got the mindless dribble of a response (who would have imagined you would get a reply) and sophomoric humor. I will leave you and everyone else to figure out which was which.
    "Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."

    Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Galvin View Post
    Actually Don, with regard to this thread,

    And we got the mindless dribble of a response (who would have imagined you would get a reply).
    I imagined it - was strongly thinking of adding an over under spread, but decided against it

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I am so sorry for the disrespectful post I made in post #11. As military pilots were literally fighting for their lives, and countries while A BJ player is only playing for money, A lousy comparison. I will quickly delete the post and kindly ask Freighter to also delete my quote.
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-06-2018 at 11:14 AM.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    I am so sorry for the disrespectful post I made in post #11. As military pilots were literally fighting for their lives, while A BJ player is only playing for money, A lousy comparison. I will quickly delete the post and kindly ask Freighter to also delete my quote.
    Bosox
    Done, as requested.
    I never interpreted in the manner that concerned yourself personally. The fact that the potential realization came to you is, in my view, a testament to your character.

    Further, as advantage players - we do so for 2 primary purposes - to prove a point and to make money. The actual fact is that we contribute nothing to the well being if society. We don't develop, or build anything of any real value. Like casinos, who also contribute nothing to society, we plunder.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Risk of Ruin
    By Three in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 07:54 AM
  2. Terminology: Risk of ruin
    By NotEnoughHeat in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 11:51 AM
  3. dok: Risk of Ruin
    By dok in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 12:56 AM
  4. pm: Risk of Ruin
    By pm in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-21-2004, 07:04 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.