Are all your times you play BJ in your life just like one endless game?

This is something I cant seem to find out. I read and hear about risk of ruin and having enough bankroll to ride out the bad run of cards to maximize playing time, but in the long run assuming the decks are randomly shuffled will it really matter at what size my session bankrolls as it pertains to getting that 1/2% loss playing the game long term?

Am i doing something bad by taking 100 bucks to a 5$ table (lowest limit i have) and sometimes getting lucky and playing for a while, and break even. Then other times take the same 100 bucks and go broke at the table. Do i still expect the long term 1/2% loss playing the game?

Because it seems like if you say took those 100$ session bankrolls and went broke 2 sessions in a row and therefore are down 200 bucks. If you are flat betting it seems like it would be really hard to make that money back up later on, or do you really get good shoes that double your bankroll flat betting? Just seems like it wouldnt happen. Does it really matter when a person jumps in and out of the game if the cards are randomly shuffled and nobody knows whats coming out next..

Maybe i am thinking about it all wrong and need correcting but i hope someone understands what i am asking...

Thanks...

Quote: brettecantwell

do you really get good shoes that double your bankroll flat betting? Just seems like it wouldnt happen. Does it really matter when a person jumps in and out of the game if the cards are randomly shuffled and nobody knows whats coming out next..

Yes, you occasionally get "really good shoes". I've seen at least one guy buy in for $10 (yes, ten), no rebuys, and walk away about $300, not doing anything crazy. I've seen a guy buy in for $100 and walk with $3500, tipping all the way (although, he was upping his bet rather crazy on the way; apparently he "had a hunch" that this was his shoe).

During a normal course of a shoe, there will be player-favorable times, and house-favorable times. Assuming you leave after the house-favorable cards (and before the player-favorable cards), you have a lesser chance of recouping your losses.

Conversely, if you only play during player-favorable times, you have a greater chance of winning.

If you play all with a flat bet, your results should closely approximate the house edge of the game.

It's all one really long session. You can lose your $100 pretty quickly sometimes, but you can also win $100 fairly quickly as well.

Perhaps you played 200 hands at a 0.5% disadvantage and had an expected loss of $5...but you lost all $100. The next time you sit down and play, you aren't ever "due" to get any of that money back. You are ALWAYS playing against the house edge. So when you sit down for session #2 and play another 200 hands, you are giving up another $5 in expected loss, and at the end of that session, you expect to be down $105, since you already lost $100 the night before.


The only caveat (that I can think of right now) to the $100 buy in and everything being one long session is this: If you're at the last of your money, and you put your last $5 chip in the circle, you are playing with a higher HE than normal, because you no longer have the ability to split or double.


Let's make a crazy example. Let's say you go to the casino for ONE day, you bring $1,000 with you, you decide you're going to flat-bet $5 for all 200 hands. Your expected loss (with a 0.5% HE) will be $5. [200 * 0.005 * 5 = 5]. Now let's say another guy goes to the casino 200 different days, and each day he decides to buy in for $5 and only play 1 hand. He, of course, would not be subject to the small 0.5% HE, because the house edge is reduced to the fact the player can double down or split in favorable situations. This guy, playing 1 hand of $5 over 200 days, has a much bigger HE he's fighting up against.

Yeah i understand you arent really "due" anything. Hard to kind of get out of that mindset hehe.

Lets say as an example... if a person was on his death bed and had an accurate record of all his money in and money out during each of the say hundreds or thousands of blackjack sessions he played his entire life.

Some would be where he won money, some where he broke even and some where he went broke at the table. His total money invested into playing the game is X, so assuming this person played perfect basic strategy the entire time and say the house edge of the game was .5%. Theoretically the money he has at the end is X - .005X correct?

Say his lifetime bankroll he played was 1,000,000$, theoretically he should have lost 5000 dollars and be sitting with 995,000$ and this would all be regardless of the the time they went in and out of games, or won money, lost money, went broke or came out even?

Sorry i have to make it so simple but it helps me nail down the basics. I do appreciate the way this game has been so analyzed and find it fascinating.

Thanks for the help!

If that was $1M in action, then yes, he would expect to have lost $5,000.

Of course, there is also variance (duh) and difficult to end up exactly on expectation.

Quote: brettecantwell

Theoretically the money he has at the end is X - .005X correct?

Plus some adjustment for wager size and standard deviation, yes.

Quote: brettecantwell

Say his lifetime bankroll he played was 1,000,000$, theoretically he should have lost 5000 dollars and be sitting with 995,000$

Except you typically recycle your bankroll...

But yes, placing $1,000,000 in wagers, flat bet size, we would generally expect that the total loss is about $5000. (Assuming a $5 to $25 bet size - that limits the number of rounds, and if the number of rounds is too small, results are more likely to diverge from expectation.)

"Risk of ruin" should only really be applied to bankrolls that are not easily replaced and are worth protecting.

Risk of ruin should also only apply to games where you have a positive expectation.

If you are playing blackjack and flat betting, your expectation is negative and thus you should have no expectation of preserving a bankroll indefinitely.

If you're playing a negative game, you're doing it for entertainment. What is entertaining about a negative game? The mechanics of the game, and variance. You are basically purchasing variance for your expected loss.

Hence there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "short" session buy-in. If you played 10 sessions with $100 buy-ins each at $5 minimum, your results would be theoretically the same as playing one session with a $1,000 buy-in. The only thing the latter session does is make it more likely you will play longer in that single session than in most of your short buy-in sessions.

Short answer: it doesn't matter.

Quote: brettecantwell

This is something I cant seem to find out. I read and hear about risk of ruin and having enough bankroll to ride out the bad run of cards to maximize playing time, but in the long run assuming the decks are randomly shuffled will it really matter at what size my session bankrolls as it pertains to getting that 1/2% loss playing the game long term?

Am i doing something bad by taking 100 bucks to a 5$ table (lowest limit i have) and sometimes getting lucky and playing for a while, and break even. Then other times take the same 100 bucks and go broke at the table. Do i still expect the long term 1/2% loss playing the game?

Because it seems like if you say took those 100$ session bankrolls and went broke 2 sessions in a row and therefore are down 200 bucks. If you are flat betting it seems like it would be really hard to make that money back up later on, or do you really get good shoes that double your bankroll flat betting? Just seems like it wouldnt happen. Does it really matter when a person jumps in and out of the game if the cards are randomly shuffled and nobody knows whats coming out next..

Maybe i am thinking about it all wrong and need correcting but i hope someone understands what i am asking...

Thanks...

Hi, Fair questions.
The cards have no memory of when you played or stopped playing and of whether you are behind or ahead of the curve. So sessions mean nothing to that extent. Overall, you will lose the house edge percentage of action placed.

BUT, but, but

If you go to the table multiple times with small session bankrolls, you will frequently reach a point where your session roll is so depleted that you will not be in a position to either split or double a hand that really should be. That is a seriously stupid disadvantaged position to be in and on those occasions you are increasing the house advantage for that session and for all time. If you do go in with a limited $100 bankroll playing $10 a hand, always have a couple of $10's in reserve for the inevitable situation. There's not much worse than being dealt a pair of aces against a dealer 5 when you cannot afford to split.

I play lots of such short sessions. E.g. over the last couple of days with a few mini-sessions I bought in for 200 and lost it. bought in for 200 took it to 800: bought in for 100 and took it to 300 and finally bought in for 100 and took it to 200 withdrawing my funds each time. That was a good weekend. There have been equally bad ones.

Embrace the variance.

$:o)

Yes and No.

Yes,,, which is why the green eye shade types and math gurus all say "take ONE big bet" and then walk away, because the "edge" is always going to be against you each and every time.

NO, because not all rainstorms will soak you thru and thru, some are enjoyable if you have enjoyable companions, some are fun if the people at the table cheer for you.... and this next card might be an ace.

risk of ruin is the mathematical term usually expressed as having only a ten percent change of being taken to the cleaners, but its also a way of thinking as "having a sufficient bankroll to have given yourself a fair shake at the game" to compensate for the normal and customary variance that you are likely to be facing.

So I assume when not counting the best way to bet is just flat bet to prolong playing time?

If by 'best' way you mean longest playing time, then yes, flat betting will yield the lowest average bet and least negative EV.

However, before I tried my hand at counting, I often varied my bet, as do most 'ploppies'. If I won a few in a row, I'd throw more money out, which is a ton of fun at $5-$10. Who knows, I might have unknowingly ramped up on a good count.

Quote: FleaStiff

Yes and No.

Yes,,, which is why the green eye shade types and math gurus all say "take ONE big bet" and then walk away, because the "edge" is always going to be against you each and every time.

NO, because not all rainstorms will soak you thru and thru, some are enjoyable if you have enjoyable companions, some are fun if the people at the table cheer for you.... and this next card might be an ace.

risk of ruin is the mathematical term usually expressed as having only a ten percent change of being taken to the cleaners, but its also a way of thinking as "having a sufficient bankroll to have given yourself a fair shake at the game" to compensate for the normal and customary variance that you are likely to be facing.

I like that post, I think I'll read it again, and I'll think about the various implications.
Thx Flea