BJ21.com Free Message Board
I was not being entirely serious and scientific here
The main point is that starting out with a somewhat small bank is a gamble and the odds of success are against you. The longer it takes for you to go broke the more of your life you have wasted. The extra risk, or higher risk of ruin, should be taken when gambling is not your livelihood. When you make the decision that this bankroll is now your business, your means of support, then it should be much more carefully guarded. If risk of ruin is any concern at all then you don't have enough money to be a pro. There are just too many other things to worry about, like trying to make money. ROR is for recreational gamblers who set some small portion aside as a blackjack bankroll. When this is your business you can't have any tangible chance of wipe out. A long term ROR of 1% is very, very high. GM or IBM would not make bets that gave them a 1% chance of going under.
You created the criticism in the greenchip discussion by the way you presented it. You clearly implied that you had a big win streak and were cutting back because you thought you were due for a loss. You did not articulate that you were changing your ROR because you had changed your objectives. If your objectives have not changed then there is not a logical reason to make smaller bets after your bankroll has grown.
Also, I advocate lowering the risk of ruin by increasing bet sizes at a slower rate than your bank grows. I don't advise betting smaller with a bigger bank. If your bank grows faster than your bets then your long term ROR moves asymptotically towards zero. If a guy playing to a 10% ROR and does not increase bets, then he is playing to a 1% ROR after his bank doubles. That's what I'm talking about. When he triples his starting bank his ROR is 1/10 of one percent.
BJ21.com Free Message Board is maintained by Pi Yee Press