Myths in the Movie 21

aslan said:

I don't think you need to eliminate the risk altogether to make it a sure thing. You could operate with say a 5% or 10% RoR and still come out fine. I say this because first of all, you will win in the long run, and second, I'm viewing your bankroll as replenishable. So, if I double my bankroll nine times and blow it one time, why should I be concerned? We focus too much on the long run possibly being a thousand years. The odds of that are probably a trillion to one. And we are often thinking of our bankroll as all that we can possible afford to lose. If that's all the money we have, then yes, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. The truth is, it takes money to make money, in general, not always. Too often we are trying to operate in the "not always" category, instead of the "general" category, in much the same way as a person tends to buy a house that he can scarcely afford, then suffers daily trying to make ends meet. Just look at what happened to Johnny Carson's sidekick, what's his name?

Click to expand...

not sure how accurate this expert was. wont mention his name. but he stated that if with todays available games he wouldn't want to try being a professional player unless he had $100,000.00 bankroll. not sure if he was talking just playing on his own, a team or how.
i've never tryed to figure it out myself just what it would take to go professional. what bankroll, how many hours a day all that. but i think most pro's would want a ROR of about 0.1% if i recall correctly.

sagefr0g said:

not sure how accurate this expert was. wont mention his name. but he stated that if with todays available games he wouldn't want to try being a professional player unless he had $100,000.00 bankroll. not sure if he was talking just playing on his own, a team or how.
i've never tryed to figure it out myself just what it would take to go professional. what bankroll, how many hours a day all that. but i think most pro's would want a ROR of about 0.1% if i recall correctly.

Click to expand...

I hope we get some comment on this.

If you are talking about a nonreplenishable br of $100,000 and you're playing it to the hilt, then I would want a very low RoR, maybe even that low.

But what I am talking about is, say, a $10,000 br replenishable ten times. I would be playing a lot lower stakes, but I wouldn't have to worry about going totally bust in a single session, since I am only risking ten percent of my potential br at a time. I don't think I need as low an RoR under those circumstances---but I may be wrong. My reasoning is that with a 10% RoR, I have a 90% chance of doubling my session br. On average I will go bust one in ten times. Doesn't that mean I will double 9 times (9 X$10,000 = $90,000) and lose one time (1 X $10,000= $10,000) for a net gain of $80,000 on average? Whereas if my entire $100,000 is always at risk, I wouldn't want a ten percent chance of losing it all. That would be disastrous.

I suppose my approach would be ten times more play intensive. So maybe a pro would choose risking the whole thing with a miniscule RoR, like the .1% you mentioned, and make his annual salary in short order. Also, even though he's betting a lot higher, I will probably have a whole lot more heat simply because I'm playing ten times longer on average. It gives the houses a lot more time to get to know me.

Like I said, I hope we get some comment on this.

PS--I think .01% RoR is close enough to a sure thing, but my heart will still skip a beat from time to time realizing that the door is still ever so slightly ajar. Lol I suppose if a thousand people take our advice, one of them on average is not going to like it! Lol I think that's why Arnold Snyder said he didn't like giving advice based on probabilities.

aslan said:

.... My reasoning is that with a 10% RoR, I have a 90% chance of doubling my session br. On average I will go bust one in ten times. Doesn't that mean I will double 9 times (9 X$10,000 = $90,000) and lose one time (1 X $10,000= $10,000) for a net gain of $80,000 on average?
...

Click to expand...

not quite sure about the 90% chance of doubling your session bank roll. i guess by a session your meaning either play till you double your roll or lose it?
so but i think given some game it's gonna take you at least some given number of hands, hours till your likely to double that bank. thats a maybe you will maybe you wont double your roll in that many hands, hours. i guess it could take longer or happen sooner sort of thing. might take a while lol. but to do that say 9 times for the hypothetical $90,000 might take longer lol.
like you say maybe someone who knows might comment.
i think i could figure it all in cvcx goal calculators if you want

sagefr0g said:

not quite sure about the 90% chance of doubling your session bank roll. i guess by a session your meaning either play till you double your roll or lose it?
so but i think given some game it's gonna take you at least some given number of hands, hours till your likely to double that bank. thats a maybe you will maybe you wont double your roll in that many hands, hours. i guess it could take longer or happen sooner sort of thing. might take a while lol. but to do that say 9 times for the hypothetical $90,000 might take longer lol.
like you say maybe someone who knows might comment.
i think i could figure it all in cvcx goal calculators if you want

Click to expand...

Feel free (with cvcx i mean)...I have nothing vested in being right or wrong...I would like to know if I am barking up the wrong tree...before I lay my money on the line...Lol.....with an RoR of 0.1% maybe that will slow down the big bettor to the point that he doesn't do any better than the smaller bettor...I don't know...intuitively, 10% RoR seems faster but then it's only applied to 1/10 the br. Therefore, it might all even out in the end. Be interesting to find out..

So the proposition is, which is safer and which is faster and which is preferred with a br of $100,000...playing it $10,000 at a time at an RoR of 10% or playing the entire $100,000 at a time with an RoR of 0.1%. Let's say the goal in both cases is to win $100,000.

aslan said:

Feel free (with cvcx i mean....
So the proposition is, which is safer and which is faster and which is preferred with a br of $100,000...playing it $10,000 at a time at an RoR of 10% or playing the entire $100,000 at a time with an RoR of 0.1%. Let's say the goal in both cases is to win $100,000.

Click to expand...

maybe here's a start. maybe i dunno what i'm doin lol

but the first case double your hundred grand with a 0.1% ror (lifetime) after 200,000 hands. you have a 85% chance of doing it.....

the second case double your ten grand with a 10% ror (lifetime) after 100,000 hands. you have a 85% chance of doing it......

what have to do that ten times maybe for the ten grand roll? so ten times 100,000 hands maybe to get to the hundred grand roll?

something like that. not sure i'm on the right track?

0% ROR With Max Returns

If you bet optimally and resize downward as bankroll shrinks you will theoretically not go broke.

In the real world you probably should bet somewhat less then optimal to account for human error.

Resize downward as your bankroll shrinks, be conservative raising bets as your bankroll grows, never make a bet that is more then optimal and you very most likely; theoretically:whip:, won't go broke.:joker:

Play Big, Win More

aslan said:

Feel free (with cvcx i mean)...I have nothing vested in being right or wrong...I would like to know if I am barking up the wrong tree...before I lay my money on the line...Lol.....with an RoR of 0.1% maybe that will slow down the big bettor to the point that he doesn't do any better than the smaller bettor...I don't know...intuitively, 10% RoR seems faster but then it's only applied to 1/10 the br. Therefore, it might all even out in the end. Be interesting to find out..

So the proposition is, which is safer and which is faster and which is preferred with a br of $100,000...playing it $10,000 at a time at an RoR of 10% or playing the entire $100,000 at a time with an RoR of 0.1%. Let's say the goal in both cases is to win $100,000.

Click to expand...

Playing the $100,000 with a very low or 0% ror is more lucrative then playing $100,000 10g at a time. Playing 10g at a time you are only betting about 1/10 of what you could, so you make less.

The closer you bet to optimal the more you will make.

sagefr0g said:

not sure i'm on the right track?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking, but let me explain one point that people are usually confused on.

For a given (fixed) ROR, the bankroll required increases initially as you play more hands, but not proportionally. So if you play 1,000 hands with a 1% ROR, you need bankroll X, and if you play 10,000 hands with a 1% ROR, you need bankroll Y, where Y is greater than X but less than 10*X.

At some point, when your EV has hit some fraction of your bankroll, the bankroll required stops increasing, and actually goes down. That is because now the probability of reaching your EV has outweighed the variance. This is the maximum bankroll that you will ever need.

Likewise, with a fixed bankroll, you have a ROR for a certain number of hands, and also a "lifetime" ROR which corresponds to the ROR for which your bankroll is the maximum bankroll for that ROR. That is, if your game requires a maximum bankroll of $20,000 to achieve a 5% ROR, then 5% is the lifetime ROR for a bankroll of $20,000 for your game.

blackjack avenger said:

Playing the $100,000 with a very low or 0% ror is more lucrative then playing $100,000 10g at a time. Playing 10g at a time you are only betting about 1/10 of what you could, so you make less.

The closer you bet to optimal the more you will make.

Click to expand...

But we were talking about sizing the bets to fit a .1% RoR in the one case and a 10% RoR in the other. That should make quite a difference, no?

Oh, That Frog is a Sage

aslan said:

But we were talking about sizing the bets to fit a .1% RoR in the one case and a 10% RoR in the other. That should make quite a difference, no?

Click to expand...

I was correct, though I would look at the question differently. Look at the screen shots Sage posted. The DI for the bigger bankroll was superior, a lot superior.

The questions I came up with in your scenario were:
How fast is the bank replenished?
What is the best way to play any bank? of course we know it is optimal resizing.

ROR of 0% is Not Impossible

la_dee_daa said:

well you may have a limited life time i dont, im my world.. its hypothetical, we figure out our ROR through an almost infinite amount of hands which we would never reach in general. There is a certain amount to lose and when you stop you stop because there is no more to lose but in the eyes of infinity we can play infinity hands and have enough money to extent to infinity. But this isn't practical in play since we do have restriction in life and time and money.

In a perfect math world there still will always be a the element of risk in these types of things its just hard to escape.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. In a perfect math world if you bet optimal your ROR is 0%. If you think that is to high then you can bet less then optimal.

I Like 100% Chance of Never Going Broke!

sagefr0g said:

Kasi said:

Those negative parts that stretch to "infinity" are included in the 1% ROR.
.......QUOTE]

that makes sense. i mean i didn't know that. but it makes sense because well that curve is a standardized sort of deal that can be used for a lot of stuff.
but you can fit it to a card counter and his situation. then come up and see what his risk of ruin is. thing is he always has some risk of ruin no matter how small. if it's not gambing why does a card counter have to have a risk of ruin?

Click to expand...

A card counter does not have to have a ROR, it can be 0%

Click to expand...

blackjack avenger said:

A card counter does not have to have a ROR, it can be 0%

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

but anyway the real guys the 21 movie was supposed to be portraying and the mythical team in the movie had an ROR.
i'll give you this much....
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

blackjack avenger said:

In a perfect math world if you bet optimal your ROR is 0%. If you think that is to high then you can bet less then optimal.

Click to expand...

In the real world, if your bankroll diminishes to $0.13, you cannot find a place to bet $0.0013 per hand.

The mathematical ROR is only 0% because it allows infinite divisions of pennies if you start losing like crazy. In the real world, at some point you drop below the minimum bet and you're R'd.

Investments require calculated risk with a warranted mathematical expectation of return.
Investors base all of their decisions on statistics and probabiltity

Gamblers have little understanding of the math behind it and bet with no calculated risk on unwarranted hopes.

A gambler would view others at the table as 'they effect the flow' and have an impact on their hands
An investor would view others at the table as 'their decisions do not effect the statistics of the cards' but can slow the game down.

Takin it to the Streets!

callipygian said:

In the real world, if your bankroll diminishes to $0.13, you cannot find a place to bet $0.0013 per hand.

In my statement I did say in the math world. However, it is possible in real life.

The mathematical ROR is only 0% because it allows infinite divisions of pennies if you start losing like crazy. In the real world, at some point you drop below the minimum bet and you're R'd.

Click to expand...

1/6th fixed Kelly wagering
ROR = .00061%
If that ROR is to high one can cut their bets if they lose half bank.

Dare I say real world 0% ROR :joker:

blackjack avenger said:

1/6th fixed Kelly wagering
ROR = .00061%
If that ROR is to high one can cut their bets if they lose half bank.

Dare I say real world 0% ROR :joker:

Click to expand...

That brings it down to about 0.0000015%. Not quite 0%, but close enough for most people.

-Sonny-

Sonny said:

That brings it down to about 0.0000015%. Not quite 0%, but close enough for most people.

-Sonny-

Click to expand...

maybe it's not gambling. almost. :joker:

Confirmation!?

Sonny said:

That brings it down to about 0.0000015%. Not quite 0%, but close enough for most people.

-Sonny-

Click to expand...

Thanx for the input.
If we cut it again I imagine there are not enough card counters or time in one's life to go broke.

In the real world we are not actually taking this to infinity.

A little secret.
The game I looked at I did not consider 2 hands. Betting the full bet over 2 hands will lower the ROR even further.

Life Has Risks!

sagefr0g said:

maybe it's not gambling. almost. :joker:

Click to expand...

The real world gets intersting. Life has risks:whip:

If you invest in the stock market, a nuclear exchange may affect your portfolio negatively:whip:

I guess one can consider that the .0000015% chance of going broke Sonny speaks of. :joker:

Of course the ROR can get even lower then what Sonny states.

The point of my jumping into this discussion; although late, is to mention that theoretical 0% ror is proven mathematically. Many think that 0% theoretical ROR is not possible in the real world. However, in the real world one can operate with a virtual, very close but not quite 0% ROR!:joker::whip: