Lifetime Stats

I did some estimation plots of ROR versus lifetime. I think these are the plots you were interested in. I did gaussian calcs (no sims), so the numbers are approximate, but they give you an idea of the trend.

This first one describes the ROR with an initial $11k bankroll. It's plotted as a funcion of hands played, but it approximately correlates with earnings as well (i.e., 4000 hands ~ $4000 earnings). It looks like it takes about 2 trips to "make it over the hump" such that your earnings overcome the variance. On this plot, we're at the equivalent of 5 trips in ($20k in earnings) so we're definitely over the initial hump of losing our initial bankroll. Remember these are lifetime RORs not trip RORs... So the numbers were only applicable when we first started playing.

This second plot describes the new ROR with the $20k we've already earned. Kinda interesting that our maximum liklihood of ROR occurs much later since we're effectively playing with a $31k bankroll (but it's drastically smaller of course than the initial conditions). Looks like about 7-8 trips from now (or after we've earned another $30k we'll be over the new "ROR" mound. This would be most likely to happen if we consecutively lost an average of $4k (-2$k/each person) for 7-8 trips.

--BlackAction 20:25, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

Going Big

Humm... that is interesting. It's good to know that there is only 0.11% ROR for us from now on... those first few trips were critical. And since we got lucky, there is even less of a chance of us losing all our money. It would have been nice to have these plots when we first started playing to understand how much money we really need to invest in order to turn a profit. They could also be useful if we decided to really go big ($100 tables) because the money we've made up until now would still be in the noise. This might help to get some investors too.

--Thingsgetdumb 14:36, 9 April 2007 (PDT)

Yeah.. The #'s are approximate since I didn't run any simulations, but they're within the range. If we did go to $100 tables, I don't think we'd be able to do the same bet spread...(and we might have to do cover betting) so we'd probably only make only 2-3 times our current rate while sustaining 4 times our current betting rate... And denying the player's card would start getting really tough. The only work around I can think for this is using a BP.

Maybe I'll gamble more later in my life... and probably more for recreational purposes. The gheyist thing about BJ is that the pay rate is linear and not exponential. No pay raises.

--BlackAction 15:21, 9 April 2007 (PDT)