Understanding Bankroll and RoR

[Persnickety1]

I have a hypothetical example:
Let's say you had a $5000 bankroll; $5=1 unit, spread 1-10.

Let's assume in a session you lost $1000 despite counting, playing, and betting properly.

A. Would you continue betting at the same level knowing that since you started with a 100 maximum bets bankroll the chances to go completely broke are very small, and having a negative variance is normal?

B. Would you re-evaluate the bankroll situation at that time, and decide either to reduce spread, reduce unit size if a lower limit table is available, or replenish the bankroll?

C. Do you constantly re-evaluate unit size and spread with each $X swing in bankroll, even if the swings happen within the same session?

 

[xxrenegadexx]

you should drop your max bet down to fourty....... but i wouldnt ..... id be too pissed

 

[supercoolmancool]

Yah you should drop it down to 40, but I wouldn't do that either. Not with only a $5,000 bankroll. If I had a 10K bankroll and droped down to 9k then I would use a 90 max bet.

 

[shadroch]

A lot of it depends on how you define BR. A pro,with no job and no other income,will define it one way.A hobbiest,like myself,will define it differently.
I'm off to Vegas this week with 1500 to play BJ with.I have my unit bets and max bets defined by that amount.If I win or lose $1000,I'll still be betting off my intial sum.Because no matter what happens,I can replace the original amount anytime I want.I don't have to worry about BR protection.Niether do 95% of players.If you have another source of income,you shouldn't be that worried about it,imho.

 

[EasyRhino]

I'd need a bigger swing than a mere 20% before I changed betting.

 

[SystemsTrader]

I have a hypothetical example:
Let's say you had a $5000 bankroll; $5=1 unit, spread 1-10.

Let's assume in a session you lost $1000 despite counting, playing, and betting properly.

A. Would you continue betting at the same level knowing that since you started with a 100 maximum bets bankroll the chances to go completely broke are very small, and having a negative variance is normal?

B. Would you re-evaluate the bankroll situation at that time, and decide either to reduce spread, reduce unit size if a lower limit table is available, or replenish the bankroll?

C. Do you constantly re-evaluate unit size and spread with each $X swing in bankroll, even if the swings happen within the same session?

A. Actually even with 100 maximum bets your chances of going broke are quite high. With your $5000 account and a max bet of $50 still puts you over one full Kelly bet.

B. Yes you should re-evaluate the bankroll, you really should replenish it. $5000 is barely enough to play blackjack with in the first place. The problem with lowering your bets is that you are going to hit the table minimum soon and really handicap yourself.

C. How you size your bets is one of the most important things you can do in blackjack if you want to be successful. You have a few options. You can break your account into Total or Core equity.

Total equity constantly sizes your bets on the exact amount of money you have. For instance if you start with $5k and make $200 you now size your bets and spreads to $5200. This is probably the best bet sizing method combined with proper kelly bets will optimize maximum growth and lower your risk when the account takes a hit. In theory never letting you reach zero and going broke. In reality you still can go broke because the casino has minimum bet requirements. The problem here is you always have to be adjusting your bet spread and this can be extremely difficult to do while in the casino playing.

Core equity sizes your bets on one dollar figure like $5000. So if you go up or down in your account you would still bet and spread on the $5k requirements. The problem here is that you will increase your risk on the down side and not make as much on the up side.

The best thing to do is combine both methods. If your account is smaller you might want to resize every $1000 increments or say $5000 increments if your account is a lot larger. The reality is the smaller your account the greater the risk you are going to have to take as it is much easier to replenish a small account and the larger your account grows you should always try to lower your risk to prevent ruin.

 

[Bojack1]

Actually I disagree SystemsTrader about the overbetting. If he is in a casino where he is allowed a min bet of $5 he could set the unit at $10 and only spread the unit 1-5, and bet 1/2 the unit until which case there is an advantage. This still gives you a bet spread of 1-10 but the minimum non advantage bets are only 1/2 the unit. Couple that with using a TC-1 system for sizing bets and betting proportionate to the advantage, and he would be betting just above .5 kelly which is more than acceptable especially if it is a replenishable bankroll. Of course this is if he is using a TC counting method where it it possible to bet that way.

 

[SystemsTrader]

Actually I disagree SystemsTrader about the overbetting. If he is in a casino where he is allowed a min bet of $5 he could set the unit at $10 and only spread the unit 1-5, and bet 1/2 the unit until which case there is an advantage. This still gives you a bet spread of 1-10 but the minimum non advantage bets are only 1/2 the unit. Couple that with using a TC-1 system for sizing bets and betting proportionate to the advantage, and he would be betting just above .5 kelly which is more than acceptable especially if it is a replenishable bankroll. Of course this is if he is using a TC counting method where it it possible to bet that way.

You're correct Bojack I tested it out and it works using a backcounting method it just won't make very much!

 

[mdlbj]

Actually I disagree SystemsTrader about the overbetting. If he is in a casino where he is allowed a min bet of $5 he could set the unit at $10 and only spread the unit 1-5, and bet 1/2 the unit until which case there is an advantage. This still gives you a bet spread of 1-10 but the minimum non advantage bets are only 1/2 the unit. Couple that with using a TC-1 system for sizing bets and betting proportionate to the advantage, and he would be betting just above .5 kelly which is more than acceptable especially if it is a replenishable bankroll. Of course this is if he is using a TC counting method where it it possible to bet that way.

Again, Bojack naild it on the head..

If you are not betting proportionate to your andvantage, you should stand up and walk away.

 

[bluewhale]

is it just me on this forum who likes to live dangerously with the 5% RoR? :grin:

 

[EasyRhino]

Guys, where is the best place to get the best info on proportional betting? I don't even know who this Kelly guy is.

 

[mdlbj]

Guys, where is the best place to get the best info on proportional betting? I don't even know who this Kelly guy is.

I got my info from Mike Aponte and Dave Irvine. Maybe Zengrifter, QFIT or sonny can point you to some good resources available online.