Don,
I would really like to know your opinion on the following article by the guys over at BJA. Specifically, do you feel that the section 'So, How Much Money Can You Make?' gives a realistic portrayal on scaling one's bankroll to enhance profits?
While I own (and read) BJA3, I would still like to know your opinion of the aforementioned article. How do you feel about the ideas and evaluative metrics suggested to assess risk and slowly scale one's bankroll?
You seem to be an advocate of SCORE and N0 when discussing bankrolls and comparing games.
The Church Team (it would seem from the article) likes to use Time to Double, RoR, and EV/Hr. to assess whether a game is worthwhile.
The MIT Blackjack Teams (all of them) assessed games using the concept of Certainty Equivalent (similar to SCORE, but not quite).
What concerns me about Time to Double is it is based purely on EV. What if the game has a large EV but a disproportionately high SD? I guess this is why they additionally take RoR into account.
One thing that has stopped me from taking the counting plunge all these years is that N0 for contemporary games is just too large. Perhaps I should have used the Church Team's philosophy? I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, but those guys don't really use N0 when evaluating games. Yet they won millions.
Best,
MJ
There is more in BJA3 about ROR and relative value of games than in any other resource that exists. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to read their article.
Every chart in chapter 10 gives ROR, e.v., SCORE, N0 -- everything you could possibly want.
I did read one thing: they took unreasonable risk and got lucky, instead of going bankrupt, in the beginning. That isn't sound policy; that's gambling.
Don
