Can you overbet with a 'theoretical br'?

[Toxic]

say I can afford a $300 max bet, but I have a plan to invest more in the future,essentially if I don't hit +var. I want to know how, if it is possible to keep risk 'relatively' low to bet say 400 or 500 max bet.


My goal is only to overbet at tc 4 or higher. As long as my TR allows me to resplit 4x and double after if allowed, what extra risks do I incur?

Another question along the same lines. If full Kelly gives me a 13% ror. Can I play full Kelly with my first br, then just keep restarting with an adequate br? Does this mean each time I invest a br I have an 87% chance of double before loss?

Do I expect to double my rolls 8.7 out of 10 times?

 

[DSchles]

"Say I can afford a $300 max bet, but I have a plan to invest more in the future, essentially if I don't hit +var."

Makes no difference for your current ROR. It is what it is. It can't read your mind for what you're going to do or not do with the money later.

"My goal is only to overbet at tc 4 or higher. As long as my TR"

Define TR please.

"allows me to resplit 4x"

Resplit three times to four hands. You need to express your thoughts clearly.

"and double after if allowed, what extra risks do I incur?"

Sim the bet strategy (after you define what "overbet" means) and see what the new ROR is. Then decide whether you can live with it or not.

"Another question along the same lines. If full Kelly gives me a 13% ror,"

It gives you a 13.5% ROR if you never resize your bets, as your bank fluctuates. Not many people play that way.

"can I play full Kelly with my first br, then just keep restarting with an adequate br?"

NO! Your ROR for the first bankroll assumes that you keep the profits in THAT bank.

"Does this mean each time I invest a br I have an 87% chance of double before loss?"

No. Doubling has nothing to do with the ROR value of 13.5%. 13.5% is the ROR before you win all the money in the world. If you stop when you double, your ROR is less than 13.5%, because there's always a small chance that, even after you double the bank, you can still be wiped out.

I'm assuming you don't have BJA3 and have never read the extensive ROR chapter it contains.

Don

 

[Toxic]

"Say I can afford a $300 max bet, but I have a plan to invest more in the future, essentially if I don't hit +var."

Makes no difference for your current ROR. It is what it is. It can't read your mind for what you're going to do or not do with the money later.

"My goal is only to overbet at tc 4 or higher. As long as my TR"

Define TR please.

"allows me to resplit 4x"

Resplit three times to four hands. You need to express your thoughts clearly.

"and double after if allowed, what extra risks do I incur?"

Sim the bet strategy (after you define what "overbet" means) and see what the new ROR is. Then decide whether you can live with it or not.

"Another question along the same lines. If full Kelly gives me a 13% ror,"

It gives you a 13.5% ROR if you never resize your bets, as your bank fluctuates. Not many people play that way.

"can I play full Kelly with my first br, then just keep restarting with an adequate br?"

NO! Your ROR for the first bankroll assumes that you keep the profits in THAT bank.

"Does this mean each time I invest a br I have an 87% chance of double before loss?"

No. Doubling has nothing to do with the ROR value of 13.5%. 13.5% is the ROR before you win all the money in the world. If you stop when you double, your ROR is less than 13.5%, because there's always a small chance that, even after you double the bank, you can still be wiped out.

I'm assuming you don't have BJA3 and have never read the extensive ROR chapter it contains.

Don

I haven't, sounds like it's getting ordered today.

I realized I'm using TR somewhat incorrectly. I'm calling my trip roll what I bring to the casino so I don't tap out and can always afford to put more money on the table when called for.

I will Sim first the overbets in my normal parameters.

Next, for full Kelly, should I just be looking at expected hourly return? I'm curious if 10 people played full Kelly what the results would be. Once the results were averaged, would you expect to see the same hourly return on average per person?

I'm looking for a way calculated way to dramatically increase EV. Obviously RoR goes up, but is there added value in changing from the traditional approach?

Ie: can I play full Kelly and if I tap out, start over?
and continue to do so for life?

Biggest question, does playing full Kelly in this style vs a 2% ror add any benefit in the long term? What about if I hope to stop playing sooner than later and just want to stack up the highest $/hr rate (without extreme ror)

 

[Meistro]

Wagering more than full kelly is counter productive for the purposes of bankroll growth. The fluctuations entailed from over betting mean there is too great a chance your bankroll becomes crippled and with it your ability to continue to earn money gambling. Full kelly is already more aggressive than is truly prudent, especially at mid stakes and up. What it really means is having a 50 max bet bankroll. Your real goal should be to have 200 to 300 max bet bankroll while still earning an appreciable hourly.

 

[DSchles]

Meistro's answer, above, is correct in all respects. I'll try to answer your specific questions.

"I haven't, sounds like it's getting ordered today."

Get it from LVA. Just $17.95.

"I realized I'm using TR somewhat incorrectly. I'm calling my trip roll what I bring to the casino so I don't tap out and can always afford to put more money on the table when called for."

OK. Not very important, though. Just always have enough to play properly.

"I will Sim first the overbets in my normal parameters.

"Next, for full Kelly, should I just be looking at expected hourly return?"

Yes. Similar to SCORE, if other parameters fall in line.

"I'm curious if 10 people played full Kelly what the results would be."

For how long? Forever? One or two would probably go broke. The rest would win gobs of money. But the results would be more certain if you stipulated a million people instead of just 10. With 10, surely more could go broke without its being a surprise.

"Once the results were averaged, would you expect to see the same hourly return on average per person?"

Yes, subject to my above caveat. Surer with a million than with 10.

"I'm looking for a way to dramatically increase EV. Obviously RoR goes up, but is there added value in changing from the traditional approach?"

No one can answer that for you. You overbet, you increase your chances of losing all of your bankroll. Only you can decide if you're willing to live with the extra risk. You might get lucky and win a lot right away. Or not. You might lose all of your bank. But, I sense that "losing all of your bank" doesn't mean to you "losing all the money in the world that you have to play blackjack." So, if your first bank and subsequent ones are always going to be replenishable, then ROR for one bank doesn't really mean very much.

"Ie: can I play full Kelly and if I tap out, start over? and continue to do so for life?"

See above. If you can "tap out" and then just start over with no consequences -- that is to say, the money for playing never dries up -- then you should just consider calling your blackjack bankroll a much higher number and play accordingly.

"Biggest question, does playing full Kelly in this style vs a 2% ror add any benefit in the long term? What about if I hope to stop playing sooner than later and just want to stack up the highest $/hr rate (without extreme ror)."

There's just not one answer to such a question. Your problem is that you really aren't at all sure what your true blackjack-playing bankroll is, and you aren't defining it properly.

Don