What % Risk of Ruin should I play with?

[john]

I am resizing my bets and I need to know from the professionals what risk of ruin you play with. I found out that I can make $27/hour with a risk of ruin of 22 % and a bet spread of 1 to 12. Or I can spread to two hands and make $55/hour with a 33 % risk of ruin with the same spread. Or back count and make $35/hour with a risk of ruin of 12 % and possibly be kicked out a few places. $15000 bankroll is what I have. $15 dollar minimum bet. Playing with 5 other players.

Can I really do that well playing with 5 other players at the table, playing 6 deck blackjack? I usually don't play with that many people at the table.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Here's my take on bankrolls and risk of ruin. I can't define exactly what my bankroll is. When I go out to play, I have $2-3K in my pocket and I play a $15 or $25 game.

Now according to the Kelly Criterion, that's crazy. But in reality, I'm employed, and if I lose my $3K I can always just get another $3K. And chances are I won't lose it. This is a positive EV game for us and my chances of losing $3K are considerably less than the chances of a ploppy winning $3K, and the odds are quite against the latter happening.

So my advice is- unless playing BJ is your occupation and you have no way of replenishing your bankroll should the unthinkable happen, forget the ROR calculations and play whatever stake that you feel comfortable with, one that would not permanently end your BJ playing days if you lost it. Especially if you backcount, because then the odds are in your favor every hand you play.

 

[john]

Thanks automatic. ROR is very important to me, well it is now. I did some refiguring and found a 7 % ROR if I wongout each time the TC drops below -1 which happens 20 % of the time. How good is 7 % ? Also, the more money I add to my bankroll the better my ROR is if my bets stay the same. I do plan to do some backcounting. I plan to backcount as much as I can get away with. If I play $25 6 deck games, $3k is enough to take for a trip? Maybe I need to re-read a few of my books to answer that question.

I have a choice of

S17 6 deck, DAS, DOA, aces get 1 card

or

S17, 2 deck, No DAS, Double on 9,10,11, aces get 1 ,and No Resplits

I am going to choose the 6 deck game because I believe it is better.

 

[revereman]

Is $3k enough to play at a $25 table?
Depends on how long the trip is, although you can easily lose $3k in one day playing at a $25 table. Let's say you have a $200 bet, and you split and have two doubles and lose them all. So you've just lost $800, or over $25% of your bankroll. To make it more realistic (and painful), you got two 20's on your doubles and the dealer got a 5 card 21. If losing that $3k in one day is going to very painful, stick to the lower limit tables, if possible. If not possible, be ready to lose your money and build your bankroll back up. The swings in BJ are justifiably compared to a rollercoaster ride. For one thing, they can both make you sick.

 

[Hal Jordan]

I Propose a Third Choice

"I have a choice of

S17 6 deck, DAS, DOA, aces get 1 card

or

S17, 2 deck, No DAS, Double on 9,10,11, aces get 1 ,and No Resplits"

Save money and frustration and wait until you are able to travel to a game that has a better edge than those two choices you have provided. If you compromise and play crowded games in conditions such as the aforementioned, you are bound to lose that BR.

HJ

 

[Sonny]

How good 7% is

> How good is 7%?

A 7% RoR is about a 1 out of 14 chance of going broke. Compare this to your 22% (1 out of 4.5) and 33% (1 out of 3). Even a 5% RoR has a 1 in 20 chance of going broke.

How do those numbers look to you? Your RoR should depend on YOUR opinion on how much of a chance you want to take with your bankroll. Some people will play with a 33% RoR if they know that they can get more money if they lose. Some people, like me, want to make our bankroll last as long as possible. Your RoR should be completely up to you.

Another thing to consider is that by lowering you RoR by playing with a smaller betting unit, you will be making less money for your effort. You must find your own compromise between risk and reward.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Re: I Propose a Third Choice

I disagree with that. You have to play the games you have access to. Sure, it would be nice if we all lived within 10 miles of a nice SD game with favorable rules and better than -0.10% EV, but that is just not in the cards (so to speak) for most of us and we have to play shoe and games with less-than optimum rules. Even if you do live near a very good game sooner or later you are going to be banned from it if you make enough money so you have to be prepared to play under a variety of conditions.

I'm not saying go out and play 6:5 BJ, but even AC rules are acceptable to someone who lives near AC. Just optimize your count, spread, and play for the games you have to work with and look around for penetration. A bad game with good penetration is a good game.

 

[Sonny]

Re: I Propose a Third Choice *PIC*

> Just optimize your count, spread, and play for the games you have to work
> with and look around for penetration.

I agree. I believe that whatever doesn't bankrupt us only makes us stronger. If you are stuck near a bad game, don't play - WATCH! Look for advantages. Wait for a good count, THEN play. See if the shuffle is vulnerable to tracking (check EVERY dealer, some may shuffle differently than others!). See if the dealers will vary the penetration, and when, and who. See if they flash the burn card, or bottom card, or hole card, or maybe the middle cards when they cut the deck. Find out when the shift change for the pit crew is (the dealers usually don't matter as much, unless you are waiting for a particular one). Find out when the casino is busy enough to get lost in but empty enough to find a seat at several tables. Find out what other games the offer and brag about playing them (next time you get two kings, forget the Royal Match crap and say "I could have used these cards at the 3-card poker table!").

Even if you still can't find a good game, you will be COMPLETELY prepaired for when you do find one. Even more important, you will know how to recognize a good game, and maybe even how to CREATE one. Great games don't usually just fall into your lap, do they?

> A bad game with good penetration is a good game.

Well said. This alone can sometimes be the key to winning.

-Sonny-

 

[john]

Re: How good 7% is

Thanks for answering my questions, everyone. There is so much to learn in this game. Now that you say 7 % means a 1 in 14 chance of going broke, I think I am going to try to go even lower. I will just put in more hours on the table.

 

[Hal Jordan]

Re: I Propose a Third Choice

I agree with the statements in regards to making negative games positive ones, but I do not believe that the original post carried a tone of such productivity as you state. I may have misunderstood, but the feeling I was left with is that this player is new to the game. I think positive situations can always be found, if the skill of the player is adequate. One who can detect the advantages that you and Automatic Monkey stated would not be asking the question that was asked.

My suggestion for one who has not yet tested themselves fully is to take time learning the game under good conditions before journeying into a much more advanced sector such as you suggest. One can make the best of bad games, but can a new student of the game? Possibly a select few can, but my opinion is that the vast majority need practice at the good games first.

HJ

P.S. I don't live close to any good games.

 

[Sonny]

Baby steps

> My suggestion for one who has not yet tested themselves fully is to take time
> learning the game under good conditions before journeying into a much more
> advanced sector such as you suggest.

True, but isn't that what computer programs are for? You can practice all day long, under any conditions you want, and never lose a penny (other than the price of the software). I agree that a new player might want to visit a local casino in order to get used to the ambiance, but I would suggest they only watch from behind the table for a while. If they can't concentrate enough to count from behind the table, or if they are not fast enough to count all the cards and still look like they aren't, they will know that they are not ready for a seat yet. Especially when a new player is trying to nurse a small bankroll, I suggest they take "baby steps" towards the table. If they don't they may regret it later.

My impression from the first post was that the player was trying to minimize his RoR. I like to think that the best defense is a good offense! Bigger edge + smaller spread = smaller RoR. I guess I went a little overboard in my post though, huh?

-Sonny-