blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Is the current bank a wonging or play all at $10? Wong points?
How many hrs of play do you expect over 13 months?
How close are you to casinos?
How many hrs of play at?
10, 15, 20, 25 stakes?
Last edited:
Rebuilding BR
- Thread starter blackjackomaha
- Start date
Is the current bank a wonging or play all at $10? Wong points?
How many hrs of play do you expect over 13 months?
How close are you to casinos?
How many hrs of play at?
10, 15, 20, 25 stakes?
blackjackomaha
Well-Known Member
Current bank is a wonging bank - currently wong in at TC+1....wong out at TC 0 or less.
On average, I expect to play 10-15 hours a week over the next 13 months. There will be 'off' weeks when I can play 20.
Roughly 20 minutes away from a few local/national casinos, 2.5 hours away from a handful of other local/national casinos, 7-hours away from a multitude of national casinos.
All my current playing time will be at $10 min tables. Once I hit my target BR, I am moving to the $25 tables again.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
what you should do & why
At $10 your not starting over your going backwards in terms of N0, this is very bad.
You have roughly a Kelly $25 bank, with a "continuous" income stream?
Your time played for a yr is about 500 hours at the $10 level
Or
100 hours at the $25 level.
I just saved you a lot of time.
Whenever you have a $25 session bank, play. If you have to take an occasional break do to losses, enjoy the rest.
Playing the same level over time is crucial for long term success.
The decision is not close.
At $10 your not starting over your going backwards in terms of N0, this is very bad.
You have roughly a Kelly $25 bank, with a "continuous" income stream?
Your time played for a yr is about 500 hours at the $10 level
Or
100 hours at the $25 level.
I just saved you a lot of time.
Whenever you have a $25 session bank, play. If you have to take an occasional break do to losses, enjoy the rest.
Playing the same level over time is crucial for long term success.
The decision is not close.
blackjackomaha
Well-Known Member
So essentially wait until the continuous income has added up to replenish the BR to near where it once was? Forgo any low-stakes play and just take a long break?
Guess that answers my original question - better to wait and save up again. Shouldn't be too long I guess. Appreciate you steering me towards the most logical decision.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
I thought you had 1/2 Kelly $10 now?
So you have close to a $25 Kelly bank now?
So play now and whenever you have a session bank.
blackjackomaha
Well-Known Member
Yes, close to $25 kelly - just a little more waiting, but not much for a session bank. Didn't mean to confuse
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me like Avenger is basically talking about 'hail mary' play. You play at the higher stakes, $25, at a higher risk than you would normally find acceptable, (full kelly). This will allow you a better return, as long as you stay in the game, so you could actually play less and still get the same return as if you were grinding away at the $10 tables, but again, only as long as you are able to stay in the game. You wong both in and out a little more and hope that you hit some positive flux some point early, in which you are off and running. If worse case scenario happens and you bust out, you build to another full kelly roll and try again. Eventually you will hit that positive flux and be off and running, but you don't know if it will be on the first 'hail mary' bank or the fifth. Has a little "gambling" flavor to it but many people with replenisible BR's will give it a go.
Friendo
Well-Known Member
The mathematics does not exist in a vacuum
There's also the consideration of expenses: travel, of course, and the usual, but also exposure. Do you really want to sell your face to the casino for $15 an hour? Even red chippers are memorable after a few dozen hours.
I question to whether red-chip play is worth it for anyone planning an eventual ascent to quarters, beyond those just seeking experience or possessing no other source of income. I have learned a lot in casinos, but red chip is lower pressure, so the benefits of experience are limited after a point.
There's also the consideration of expenses: travel, of course, and the usual, but also exposure. Do you really want to sell your face to the casino for $15 an hour? Even red chippers are memorable after a few dozen hours.
I question to whether red-chip play is worth it for anyone planning an eventual ascent to quarters, beyond those just seeking experience or possessing no other source of income. I have learned a lot in casinos, but red chip is lower pressure, so the benefits of experience are limited after a point.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
intetesting thoughts
I tend to agree. Playing only when you make over twice your hourly job EV seems a good threshold.
I tend to agree. Playing only when you make over twice your hourly job EV seems a good threshold.
blackjackomaha
Well-Known Member
It is true that after a period of time, the casino personnel will recognize you. That's a cost of doing business no matter your bet level, unless you're constantly changing locations. I have been doing an excellent job keeping track of different shifts schedules as to not play with the same dealers and floor bosses too much, in addition to mixing the locations. The only variable is surveillance - so unless I do something out of the ordinary to warrant more attention, or unless there is an overly observant employee, I think the risk is about the same. If you fit in well with the 'normal' gambling crowd, I think the lower limit tables offer better cover in terms of unusual plays and superstitions.
I'm not really in it for the experience, as I've been playing now for three years. Yes - the pressure and heat levels at the $25 level are different. I don't want to become 'rusty' either, so I can continue to run through decks at home.
I'm always trying to learn more - perhaps instead of actually playing at the lower limit tables, I can spend my time scouting the tables for weak dealers and attempt to utilize stronger AP plays that I have read about? This would create more opportunities as well.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
devil in details
If he was just starting:
1/2 Kelly with money coming in would be fine.
However, there are extenuating circumstances. I am under the impression many hours have been played at the fixed $25 level. He has been playing toward that N0. He would want to play at the same stakes. For him to now play $10 resizing he is in fact going backwards in regard to N0. He's better off to bet fixed Kelly at the $25 level with funds coming in. Betting fixed Kelly is not a hail Mary bank. Whenever he has a $25 fixed session bank he should play.
Important session bank points:
If ever get within 10% of session wipeout, next session bring 25% more. Also, need about 50% more money in a session if playing 2 hands.
If he was just starting:
1/2 Kelly with money coming in would be fine.
However, there are extenuating circumstances. I am under the impression many hours have been played at the fixed $25 level. He has been playing toward that N0. He would want to play at the same stakes. For him to now play $10 resizing he is in fact going backwards in regard to N0. He's better off to bet fixed Kelly at the $25 level with funds coming in. Betting fixed Kelly is not a hail Mary bank. Whenever he has a $25 fixed session bank he should play.
Important session bank points:
If ever get within 10% of session wipeout, next session bring 25% more. Also, need about 50% more money in a session if playing 2 hands.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
I don't see how his past results of playing towards that number are relevant as he no longer has the results (money won, nor bankroll)) from that play, so that past experience is irrelevant and he is in fact starting over isn't he?
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
interesting but N0
What if someone plays $1, $25 & $100 rotated daily. Do you agree the $1 play is about meaningless? No matter order of play?
If one could play to N0 quickly do you agree its a good thing? Then playing to increase N0 is a bad thing
I don't see how his past results of playing towards that number are relevant as he no longer has the results (money won, nor bankroll)) from that play, so that past experience is irrelevant and he is in fact starting over isn't he?
What if someone plays $1, $25 & $100 rotated daily. Do you agree the $1 play is about meaningless? No matter order of play?
If one could play to N0 quickly do you agree its a good thing? Then playing to increase N0 is a bad thing
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Of course playing to the NO is a good thing if you do so at a reasonable RoR without getting wiped out. If you get wiped out along the way it is not a good thing. :laugh:
It seems like you are saying you should never resize downward because it will increase your NO. Most players resize downward upon losing a significant portion of their bankroll. Spending that BR (even on a good cause like grad school) is no different than losing it. You no longer have it and are either going to have to resize downward to play at a reasonable RoR (and yes increase your NO) or you are playing with a hail mary BR at a higher RoR. It's one or the other.
I am not trying to be argumentative here, Avenger. Just trying to understand your thinking. I find myself in a situation not all that different. I lost 30% of my BR over a 5 week period in july and early august before I got sick and have taken a forced break. This loss was further complicated by A non-Bj hit to my BR which I am sure is well known by now. So as I prepare to ease back into action in the near future my BR is down about a third.
This is normally the point I would be forced to resize back a bit, but because my BR was slightly inflated from good results prior to this hit, I think I can go a bit longer. But any further decline and I will have to resize either spread or unit downward. It isn't pleasant. It will f**K your NO. But to not do so is like playing with a hail mary Roll. Not all that different that BJO's situation. (except he got something positive out of his bankroll reduction....Grad school.)
Last edited:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
what is hail mary
13.53% fixed ror is not hail Mary, one in 7 chance of losing all. Plus, he can add to it. It's what SCORE is based on and all of Don's chap 10. So fair to say its not hail Mary.
What is hail Mary? That which is most likely to fail, desperation. Kelly is not desperation.
13.53% fixed ror is not hail Mary, one in 7 chance of losing all. Plus, he can add to it. It's what SCORE is based on and all of Don's chap 10. So fair to say its not hail Mary.
What is hail Mary? That which is most likely to fail, desperation. Kelly is not desperation.
kewljason
Well-Known Member
Hail mary = most likely to fail.
I am not familiar with that definition. I was going by the Hail Mary article on BJ21, which define a hail mary bankroll as 40-50 max bets. 40-50 max bets in most cases is going to put you pretty close to full kelly. So yes, fixed full kelly is desperation, IMO and you better be saying some sort of prayer. I would note the very first line of the OP's first post. He wants to rebuild his bankroll, so he can safely go back to playing higher limit tables. Risk is subjective, and I realize I see this issue differently than some because of my situation (non replenishible BR) but to me a 1 in 7 chance of losing all is not safely rebuilding.
Upon a major reduction in bankroll, whether through loss or spending, you have to take a step back, re-evaluate where you currently are and yes, sometimes downsize your unit and/or spread in order to safely move forward. To not do so, is nothing short of gambling.
http://bj21.com/bj_reference/pages/9719.html
Last edited: