newcomer with question

Long time reader, first time poster. I thought I'd introduce myself and ask a question. I've been playing BJ using basic strategy for quite some time and recently decided to take the next step. Bought KOBJ and learned to count and use the deviations from BS. Played for a while without keeping track of wins/losses knowing there would be some mistakes on my part and not wanting to get frustrated. More recently I've set aside a bankroll and began keeping track. My bankroll was $5000 and is up a modest $1375 since Thanksgiving. The games available to me near home are DD and 6D. Both are H17, DOA, DAS with no surrender. My question has to do with bankroll size vs. bet size. KO says your max bet should never exceed 1% of your overall bankroll. When I'm playing DD my minimum is $10 spread 1-4, 6D is $5 min spread 1-10. Iknow those are low but until I'm more comfortable I don't want to push it. Is there some rule of thumb on the bankroll size for a single session as opposed to everall bankroll? I typically buy in for $300 at DD and $200 at 6D.

Thanks in advance for the help.

You ask: "Is there some rule of thumb on the bankroll size for a single session as opposed to overall bankroll?"

The answer is simply NO.

Furthermore, you stated: "I typically buy in for $300 at DD and $200 at 6D."

That is of no consequence, although I will suggest that buying in for more than those amounts has no benefits as your hands will be able to find your pockets as needed.

Session is a rather vague concept. But if it is of any help to you, I've found over a period of years that in multi-deck games, with average rules and pen, spreading roughly 10 to 120, I need about $700 for a one hour session. Even then I tap out once in a while. If you are betting half that you should be okay with several hundred less.
But one of the most annoying things that can happen is to run out of money in a good high count with a number of hands yet to come.

advantagenovice,

Believe it or not, this very topic arose just over a week ago on this very webpage. Below I quote from one of my posts in the thread (the entire post is available at the link at the bottom of this post), and "you" refers to the original poster, RA21:

Earlier in the thread you asked if a 1:15 spread was reasonable for DD. You implied that a 1:4 spread was "safer". For purposes of illustration, I fired up CVCX and simmed a DD, H17, DAS game with 60% pen for a lone AOII counter playing all in quarters to a $13K BR. I wanted to show you the cost of playing with a limited spread.

Spreading 1:4, his RoR was 13.4% and his WR was $29.69
Spreading 1:5, his RoR was 12.3% and his WR was $38.84
Spreading 1:6, his RoR was 12.5% and his WR was $47.71
Spreading 1:7, his RoR was 13.1% and his WR was $56.13
Spreading 1:8, his RoR was 14.3% and his WR was $65.00

Higher spreads gave higher WR's and RoR's.

Notice, though, that a 1:7 spread outperforms the 1:4 spread: the WR is higher (of course), but the RoR is lower. This result seems paradoxical to many newer players: they feel instinctively that higher spreads give both higher WR's (correct) and higher RoR's (not always true).

Keep this in mind when you're deciding on you spread.

Ok, the quote is for a player using the very powerful Advanced Omega II, while you're using the KO: less powerful, but still fine for the job. Also, the player in the quote was betting in $25 units to a $13K bankroll: your unit size is $10 (40% of $25), and conveniently your BR is a bit over 40% of $13,000, or $5,200. Thus, your win rates will be roughly 40% of the values quoted (actually, a bit less, since KO is somewhat less powerful than AOII).

Thus, I'd give you the same advice as I gave the original poster, RA21: don't be afraid to widen your DD spread, as doing so will (up to a point, of course) increase your win rate while simultaneously decreasing your Risk of Ruin.

As for the "1% rule", you can see that my advice violates that adage: with a 1:7 spread for the original poster, my advice would have him betting up to $175 on a $13K BR, for a max bet of 1.35% of his BR.

If you'd like more detailed information, let me know the number of other players (on average), the game speed (most assume 100 rounds per hour), and most importantly, the penetration, and I'll run a sim for a KO counter.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Thanks for the replies. I was hoping for some magic formula that apparently doesn't exist. I would argue that the fact that my hands will be able to find my pockets as needed IS of consequence if my pockets are empty. Should I not look at RoR for each trip to the table? I'm still trying to build a bankroll that can weather most storms so I have been betting rather small to prevent needing to start over. Right now I feel like I'm in that place where I know just enough to be dangerous.

I really do appreciate your more tolerant reply. My real question may be; do you ignore RoR for one single trip to the tables? Is RoR only a term applied to your overall bankroll? What percentage of my bankroll should I take with me on a trip to a casino? I expect very few people take their entire roll to the table every time they play. As I write this more and more questions come to mind. That's why I'm here. I will typically leave if I double my buy-in and almost always leave if I lose my initial buy-in. I think that's where my original question came from. What percentage of you overall bankroll do you make available for a single trip to the tables? I really do appreciate your time and am trying to learn. BTW I can't believe no one said welcome to the forum.

The most important factor in determining your trip bankroll is your own psychological barrier: How much am I prepared to lose?
In technical terms, the bankroll for a day trip should be about 20 maxbets.In order to beat the game you describe you would need a max. bet of at least $100.But what's the point in taking 2000$ to the session if you leave after losing the initial buy-in of 300$?
My suggestion is that you step up your trip bankroll along with your ability to take losses. BTW,welcome to the forum.

Francis Salmon

I knew I was coming to the right people for advice.

Doghand,

In that example, how is it possible for a 1-7 spread to yield a smaller ROR than a 1-4 spread? Assuming the betting unit is the same for both cases, this seems rather odd.

MJ

There is a very clear benefit to leaving following a modest loss.

That is that you are [purposely] "booking a loss", meaning that the casino's data base will indicate numerous losing sessions.

A Pit Boss or Shift Manager is less likely to sweat your action if the computer display shows numerous losses, no matter the size of the losses, as s/he is unlikely to look too closely if it is obvious that you frequently have losing sessions.

I was once 86'd from a great venue after foolishly winning moderate amounts (playing chunky green) on 13 of 14 successive 2 and 3 day trips.

In retrospect, I would have never been "tapped on the shoulder" if I would have simply generated some (miniscule) losing sessions.

MJ,

If you flat bet $25, your RoR is 100%... unless the rules are REALLY good ;-). If you spread $25-$100, your RoR is, say, 13%. This means that, by INCREASING your max bet from $25 to $100, your RoR goes DOWN.

In fact, if we draw a plot with the y-axis the RoR (to a fixed BR) and the x-axis the maximum bet (in fixed units, say $25 units), the graph will be at 100% at a 1-unit max, then will FALL to a minimum, and finally increase again, eventually crossing 100% once again. Thus, the graph will look sort of like the letter "U". Where the minimum will occur, and how low it is, both depend on the game's rules, the pen, and the ratio of the "unit" to the bankroll.

If you go back and read my replies to RA21 in the thread from a few weeks ago, you can get a bit more information as to why this seemingly contrary result is indeed true.

Dog Hand

The optimum unit and top bet varies with spread size just as Risk of Ruin does. You should never assume that units stay the same.

...but I don't think that a novice low stakes player should be concerned with heat at all.There is also a problem that your travel expenses will take too much weight if you play this stop loss system unless you've got other casinos nearby.
I just had the impression that our poster was reluctant to put money at risk when it's called for.I'm afraid, if he cannot take occasional big losses he cannot be a long term winner.

Francis Salmon