Winnings vs. Bankroll

I currently play at the green chip level, with aspirations to play black. How much of my green chip winnings should be used to increase my bankroll?

As much as you need to get to at least 100 times your new max bet. Some say your bankroll should be at least 100 times your maximum bet, so if your max bet is $500, use at least $50,000 of your green chip winnings (you got that much?). The Gamemaster in the BJ School to the left says to use only 50 times the maximum bet ($60 max bet times 50 for a $3000 bankroll at a $5 table with 1-12 spread), but some have said that's too conservative even for red chippers. I bet some would say black chippers should use far more than 100 times max bet. Of course, if your green chip winnings is more than 100 times your max bet, you can use it all to increase your spread. If your green chip winnings is not greater than 100 times your new planned max bet, IMO, it's not time for black action.

Most counters I've talked to says 50 times your max bet is not big enough backroll for them to play with a decent spread to beat the game. 100 may be considered aggressive.

The player who plays at a higher risk of ruin (50 max bets)is the agressor. The one who has 100 max bets is at a much less risk of ruin. If I were using a 1000 max bets and another playing were only using 30 max bets for bankroll, the I would be the one considered to be playing tight(conservative),not aggressive. I think you're confusing agression with Bankroll.

It depends on one's point of view. I'm a person who presently banks the money for personal purposes when I significiantly go over my original '100 times max bet' bankroll rather than increasing my spread. I consider someone who does increase his spread in this case as aggressive (aggression is winning more money - increasing EV more than increasing ROR). I agree with you that someone is tight or conservative if they don't increase their spread when their BR goes up and up forever from their original 100 times max bet amount. I can see where people consider one aggressive as his BR decreases without decreasing his spread, increasing his ROR (aggression is overbetting - increasing your ROR without increasing EV). But I would consider it being uninformed, crazy, desperate, dumb, etc.

But if I went from betting green to betting black, I would definitely use 100 instead of 50 to calculate BR.

Joe is asking about bankroll requirements(50 max units compared to 100 max units). I think you're getting a little off track.

To explain what I'm trying to say in simple terms about agression, I will give you a sample. For practical purposes we'll say the max bet is $100.

Player A) 50 max unit bankroll = $5,000

Player B) 100 max unit bankroll = $10,000

Players A and B's EV are the same. The MAX bets are the same. You're assuming that just because player B has a higher bankroll, his max bets are higher.This is not the case. Player A is betting the same max bets as B, but at a much higher risk of ruin,therefore player A is definitely the more agressive player and player B is the conservative player.

I don't disagree with anything you said - I just view a person who has a larger BR as more aggressive in winning money since he reduces his ROR.

This reminds me of the debate of the term 'gambling' on this board in the past, which I just had with a coworker about a month ago. Even though I explained to him that card counters are not gamblers because they have the long term edge like the house, he insists on using the Webster dictonary as describing 'gambling' as simply placing a wager.

I even explained to this coworker that if someone bets that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will win the World Series this year, and I took that bet and would win if any other team wins it, that it is not 'gambling' since I have a positive expectation of winning the bet, so there's another definition of 'gambling' that implies negative expection, not simply placing a wager. But he was closed-minded and will always be convinced that card counters are gamblers simply by placing a wager and they don't win every session. And when I asked is the house 'gambling' everyday that they are going to win money, he said 'yes', so I told him we will just have to agree to disagree.

This is an interesting subject. Being a card counter I would like to also feel like I'm investing my money. Many on the internet will call it investing when it is actually gambling. We are gamblers that have a small edge to grind and have to deal with our risk of ruin. Anytime our money is put at a risk(such as card counting)we are gambling. Your friend is actually correct.

The action at the stock exchange makes Casino gambling look like nothing but spare change. I would say people who win or lose billions of $$$ a day, definitely qualifie as gamblers. Of course the Stockbrokers always use the gentle word of "investment".