An example of a swing of two standard deviaitons is provided by Stanford Wong, in his Professional Blackjack book, which is a must-read for anyone pursuing this game on any more than a casual basis. Playing what he calls a set of "Benchmark Rules" for an example 6D game, he does the math to calculate a win of $16 per hour. He says that at one hour, one standard deviation is $415. He carries the math further, to calculate that at 40 hours, the expected win is $640, and one standard deviation is $2625. Thus, at 40 hours, you can expect, 67% of the time (1 s.d.) to be between -$1985 and +$3265. 97% of the time (2 s.d., $5250 in this case) you can expect to be between -$4210 and $5890. 3 s.d. (99.7 % of the time) between -$7235 and +$8515.
After longer and longer times, the possible range of where you will be widens out, but you get the picture: For a relatively modest expected win of a measley $640, you have a good chance of being down two or four, or ten grand, for a while.
This is what a blackjack player means by "gut-wrenching swings". LOL.
Also, consider that the book I was looking at (at the library) is over ten years old (there may be a newer edition) - the game of a quality that he referred to as a benchmark is very hard to find nowadays, meaning your expected win rates may be lower, and s.d higher. Also, the benchmark assumes one is playing perfectly. (And that's not me :-)
(I'd strongly reccommend this book to get a better explanation of this than I can provide.)
So, this is what I meant about having a sizable bankroll - a large reserve of cash for modest expectations. I don't recall saying that I'd recommend you not play. After all, based on the statistics, one expects to be way down less often than you're way, way up. Also, it is fun and a challenge, and people are hard-wired, by evolution, to attack challenges. Guys especially (but not solely) are always on some kind of goldang Quest. I'd recommend Mario Puzo's book on Las Vegas for a good description of why we gamble.
My comment about a "nest egg" was meant to suggest that not spending money (and not dumping a pile of it in casinos) consitutes a lot more than "saving money". Money not spent is a very, very powerful instrument. It is safe to say that most people do not understand this, and it is contrary to almost everything our culture teaches, otherwise they wouldn't do the following, for example: let advertisers tell them what vehicle they have to have, let homebuilders tell them how big of a house they need, let fashion mags dictate coture and coiffure, and nail design, and let some weird childhood expectations tell them how big of a dog to get, and that they should buy books instead of going to the library, and let Nashville, LA, Orlando,et al dictate what kind of garbagy music to buy, etc etc ad infinitum , ad nauseum. And most important of all, to go into deep, deep debt for all this crap, to support all these feeble props to self image. Digging the hole deeper and deeper. Leasing cars, for cripes sake! Credit cards! Burn 'em all.
Because if you have no debts, your money is not only not gone, it can be making money. A lot.
So all I started out to say was that in deciding whether to play blackjack, consider whether your use of this cash might put a serious ding in an overall financial plan.
The numbers are wild.
I enjoyed your quotes, and found them very thought provoking.
I often laugh at myself when I think of some of my own favorite quotes, one of which:
"The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that wealth, and all that beauty ever gave,
Awaits alike the inevitable hour,
The paths of glory lead but to the grave".
-Thomas Gray, "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard"
LOL
:: ::