Thread Rating:

CoolMike
CoolMike
Joined: Aug 25, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 10
March 17th, 2014 at 2:51:37 PM permalink
The problem here is not one of financial advise, it is one of mathematics. Here me out on this one: Playing on borrowed money is the opposite scenario as having a loss rebate.

In a casino, if you are given a loss rebate many games with low house edges become player advantageous. A common example is a high roller who is recruited to play at a casino by being given a temporary 20% back on any losses over a certain threshold. A smart player establishes a win quit value, a loss-quit value, and hammers the game for all its worth. In the long run this player makes money.

Playing with borrowed money is the opposite. The money you lose costs you more than it's value to repay. This is like agreeing to play at a casino where you keep your winnings, but your losses are multiplied by 1.05.

The reverse loss-rebate increases the house edge on blackjack.

This is important and needs to be taken into consideration. If you have other funds available, use them, because you will make more money this way.

The loss-rebate advantage has been discussed so frequently that I will let the OP look up the simple mathematics.
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
March 17th, 2014 at 3:04:02 PM permalink
Quote: sabre

Your risk of ruin is nearly 100% because you don't have a bankroll. A balance transfer off a cash advance is a loan, not a bankroll.



I agree with this. A bankroll is not a bankroll regardless of how it is funded, as the OP keeps stating. If I sell my car and a bulk of my clothing to fund my bankroll, I don't have a bankroll. I have screwed up priorities, because now I need a new car and new clothes. I can't use this money to play cards. I can always choose wrong and do so anyway, but you cannot really analyze that under traditional thinking. It is also extremely true, as the above post indicates, that a loan funding the bankroll increases the house edge.
stabworld
stabworld
Joined: Mar 10, 2014
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 297
March 17th, 2014 at 3:07:21 PM permalink
Quote: geoff

The short answer to all four of your questions is: it depends. What game you are play, where you are playing, and even why you are playing all influence these answers. Spreading 1-4 at the El Cortez has gotten people kicked out for counting before where at some places you can spread 1-30 and no one questions it. I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know what your goal is, but most counters who plan to make a living on blackjack do so with a risk of ruin at essentially 0 so they can live off the proceeds. Remember that most risk of ruin calculations are made based on the proceeds being funneled back into your bankroll. If you take them out to pay living expenses you are using a different calculation.

For the sake of giving you a general answer here is one for 6 deck DAS, H17, Surrender, RSA, full indices (this means best case scenario), 75% pen, at half-kelly:
1. See spread.
2. See spread.
3. Spread is 25-400 (1-16 is a pretty general spread for a 6 deck shoe)
4. Risk of ruin is 2.5%

For most counters this is far too high of a RoR if they do not have a replenishable bankroll. If you wanted to do it for a living you would probably want:
10-160 spread at essentially 0 (.03%) RoR. The pay off from that is less than half of the above spread however.



Thank you!
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
March 17th, 2014 at 3:22:33 PM permalink
Quote: stabworld

Sonuvabish - I hear what your saying. I still am not sure how you get a 40% - 20% rate of ruin? With a 40,000 bankroll - a min $25 bet - and $400 max bet - how can this be? Using the calculators - it is telling me around 2% risk of ruin. Remember - I will not be playing these limits until I have almost mastered card counting. I am currently in the practice mode. I am practicing at home - timing myself counting down a deck - 1 card at a time - 2 card pairs at a time - and will do 3 cards at a time soon. I am slowly but surely getting my feet wet at the tables playing a min bet of $10 and not deviating from that $10 bet - unless the true count gets above +12 where I am going up to $20 - $30 $40. I am currently studying the indexes.



I ran various simulations under varying conditions. The only way I can come up with 2% ROR is by counting perfectly with all indices in optimum conditions such as great deck penetration, wonging a lot, optimum betting, and being completely obvious about it. BJstrat also indicates an ROR in that ballpark based on average bet. When you take away some of the ideal playing conditions, your ROR rapidly deteriorates--and you cannot forget you do not play as well as a computer regardless of conditions. Axiom's advice is quite sound. If you have trouble accepting what I am telling you, then you should also take in what he's telling you. Your 'bankroll' has interest expenses and minimum payments, so it starts off as about a $1000 less than $40,000, and is constantly shrinking. There are other factors involved that you are not accounting for. No matter which way you cut it, 20% is generous. 2% is ridiculously unrealistic. At your current level, you are perfectly safe practicing with max bets of $40. Once you master all indices, aggressively wong, and never lose the count, I think it would be more like 7-15%, rather than 20-40%. If you really plan on doing this, I'd suggest the brazen $5-200 spread. I prefer heat over risk. Getting 86ed might be a little embarrassing, but it won't cost you your retirement. I find it a vastly superior decision to operate with a huge spread than a huge ROR.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 3:44:35 PM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

I ran various simulations under varying conditions. The only way I can come up with 2% ROR is by counting perfectly with all indices in optimum conditions such as great deck penetration, wonging a lot, optimum betting, and being completely obvious about it. BJstrat also indicates an ROR in that ballpark based on average bet. When you take away some of the ideal playing conditions, your ROR rapidly deteriorates--and you cannot forget you do not play as well as a computer regardless of conditions. Axiom's advice is quite sound. If you have trouble accepting what I am telling you, then you should also take in what he's telling you. Your 'bankroll' has interest expenses and minimum payments, so it starts off as about a $1000 less than $40,000, and is constantly shrinking. There are other factors involved that you are not accounting for. No matter which way you cut it, 20% is generous. 2% is ridiculously unrealistic. At your current level, you are perfectly safe practicing with max bets of $40. Once you master all indices, aggressively wong, and never lose the count, I think it would be more like 7-15%, rather than 20-40%. If you really plan on doing this, I'd suggest the brazen $5-200 spread. I prefer heat over risk. Getting 86ed might be a little embarrassing, but it won't cost you your retirement.



The problem with spreading $5 to $200 is that he will be lucky to make $20 per hour.

This is why I continue to think that, realistically, to count cards professionally, you need a $100,000 bankroll in addition to living expenses, etc. If you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
March 17th, 2014 at 3:59:40 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The problem with spreading $5 to $200 is that he will be lucky to make $20 per hour.

This is why I continue to think that, realistically, to count cards professionally, you need a $100,000 bankroll in addition to living expenses, etc. If you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.



He's not gonna make 20/hr without wonging and indices with his other spread either. I think he'd make about 2/3 as much with that spread, and cut ROR down to less than 5%. This year, I'm making about 6X my expected hourly, which isn't a ton because my expectation is meager (my ROR is bout 0.1-0.3). I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes some extra dough, he can add to the BR and alter his spread. If he loses, betting low is a good thing. The last thing in the world that will ever happen in a short period of time--he will actually win what was expected.

I'd also say you could go 5-400 with two hands, just seems a little ridiculous and obvious. Just get that minimum bet down. ROR is way too high. Look at mine. My bankroll is 100% funded by blackjack winnings.
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4298
March 18th, 2014 at 7:28:28 AM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

If you are an amateur with a replenishable bankroll (ie, a job where you make a hell of a lot more than you spend) then it's different; "risk of ruin" doesn't really apply.


Damn it feels good to be a gangsta :)
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
stabworld
stabworld
Joined: Mar 10, 2014
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 297
March 23rd, 2014 at 12:18:59 PM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

He's not gonna make 20/hr without wonging and indices with his other spread either. I think he'd make about 2/3 as much with that spread, and cut ROR down to less than 5%. This year, I'm making about 6X my expected hourly, which isn't a ton because my expectation is meager (my ROR is bout 0.1-0.3). I wouldn't worry about it. If he makes some extra dough, he can add to the BR and alter his spread. If he loses, betting low is a good thing. The last thing in the world that will ever happen in a short period of time--he will actually win what was expected.

I'd also say you could go 5-400 with two hands, just seems a little ridiculous and obvious. Just get that minimum bet down. ROR is way too high. Look at mine. My bankroll is 100% funded by blackjack winnings.



Thank you for the advice. I think I am going to go with a 1-20 spread - playing 2 bets if possible - ($200 max bet on each spot $200 + $200).. with a $10 min bet.. What do you all think the risk of ruin is on this?
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
March 23rd, 2014 at 12:54:34 PM permalink
Quote: stabworld

Thank you for the advice. I think I am going to go with a 1-20 spread - playing 2 bets if possible - ($200 max bet on each spot $200 + $200).. with a $10 min bet.. What do you all think the risk of ruin is on this?



That seems good. Just master basic strategy and the indices.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
1BB
1BB
Joined: Oct 10, 2011
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 5339
March 23rd, 2014 at 1:07:56 PM permalink
Wong out on the 6 deck and do not jump to two spots in the middle of the double deck unless you are absolutely sure of their tolerance level. Either start with two hands or stay with one. Good cards to you!
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi

  • Jump to: