DavidC
11-24-2005, 03:23 AM
Hey guys, I confess, I don't know how to manage my roll. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
You're given bb/100 of 2bb, and std dev of 15 bb. Generally I like to have ROR = 0.1% = 0.001, therefore my BR at ROR = 0.1% is 440.36 BB... FYI, ROR = exp(-2*BR*EV/VAR).
---
How do I manage my roll within that threshold? Here's a few options:
A) I start playing 2/4 LHE with 440 bb, until I lose a bb, then drop to 1/2.
B) I start playing 2/4 LHE with 440 bb, until I drop to 220bb, then drop to 1/2 at 440bb at that level.
C) Play 2/4 until I bust.
For option C, although I originally had taken a 1/1000 ROR shot, when I get to 30bb in my stack, there's about a 60% chance of busting.
---
Option A represents what I will call a "Continuous" risk threshold. This means that you're constantly looking at your BR to determine what you should be doing. This is going into super-conservative territory, but it may be the correct approach. I'm just not sure yet if I should be using this approach or not. I suspect that this approach makes your actualized ROR much much lower than 1/1000, since you'll be reducing bet sizes in a downswing.
Option C represents what I'll call a "Static" risk threshold. This is actually pretty funky: if you had something like a million dollar roll, but for some reason you could only accept swings of a maximum of $1760, you'd go ahead and set this threshold, and there's only a 1/1000 chance that you'd ever see an absolute downswing (not relative to EV) this violent. On the other hand, if you play your bankroll like a "system", accepting one shot at risk, in a sense, this is it. You take your 1/1000 chance, no matter what happens, you'll never exceed that chance.
FWIW, the reason that a 300bb roll is acceptable is because of people's willingness to drop down in limits if they hit a bad swing. Otherwise, you may be best to keep a 440 roll just to protect you from the really bad swings. They DO happen.
---
Option B, which is what most people take, is what I'll call the "step-wise" approach to bankroll management. Here's how it might work in practice:
You have a roll of X. You decide to bet at threshold ROR=0.1% until your new roll, Y, is either 1.5X or 0.5X, at which point, you will re-evaluate your bet size (stakes) to be consistent with ROR = 0.1% at new bankroll X.
Alternatively, you might play until Y = 0 or 2X, before you re-evaluate.
---
I've shown some different bankroll management practices, and I've shown you guys why Miller says what he says (in the 2p2 mag) about bankroll management, but I can't tell you guys what is best. On one hand, it's subjective, and I can't tell you what an acceptable level of risk is for YOU, and on the other, I don't have a clue which of these three approaches is the most suited to an advantage gambler in general.
Any input on this would be appreciated.
You're given bb/100 of 2bb, and std dev of 15 bb. Generally I like to have ROR = 0.1% = 0.001, therefore my BR at ROR = 0.1% is 440.36 BB... FYI, ROR = exp(-2*BR*EV/VAR).
---
How do I manage my roll within that threshold? Here's a few options:
A) I start playing 2/4 LHE with 440 bb, until I lose a bb, then drop to 1/2.
B) I start playing 2/4 LHE with 440 bb, until I drop to 220bb, then drop to 1/2 at 440bb at that level.
C) Play 2/4 until I bust.
For option C, although I originally had taken a 1/1000 ROR shot, when I get to 30bb in my stack, there's about a 60% chance of busting.
---
Option A represents what I will call a "Continuous" risk threshold. This means that you're constantly looking at your BR to determine what you should be doing. This is going into super-conservative territory, but it may be the correct approach. I'm just not sure yet if I should be using this approach or not. I suspect that this approach makes your actualized ROR much much lower than 1/1000, since you'll be reducing bet sizes in a downswing.
Option C represents what I'll call a "Static" risk threshold. This is actually pretty funky: if you had something like a million dollar roll, but for some reason you could only accept swings of a maximum of $1760, you'd go ahead and set this threshold, and there's only a 1/1000 chance that you'd ever see an absolute downswing (not relative to EV) this violent. On the other hand, if you play your bankroll like a "system", accepting one shot at risk, in a sense, this is it. You take your 1/1000 chance, no matter what happens, you'll never exceed that chance.
FWIW, the reason that a 300bb roll is acceptable is because of people's willingness to drop down in limits if they hit a bad swing. Otherwise, you may be best to keep a 440 roll just to protect you from the really bad swings. They DO happen.
---
Option B, which is what most people take, is what I'll call the "step-wise" approach to bankroll management. Here's how it might work in practice:
You have a roll of X. You decide to bet at threshold ROR=0.1% until your new roll, Y, is either 1.5X or 0.5X, at which point, you will re-evaluate your bet size (stakes) to be consistent with ROR = 0.1% at new bankroll X.
Alternatively, you might play until Y = 0 or 2X, before you re-evaluate.
---
I've shown some different bankroll management practices, and I've shown you guys why Miller says what he says (in the 2p2 mag) about bankroll management, but I can't tell you guys what is best. On one hand, it's subjective, and I can't tell you what an acceptable level of risk is for YOU, and on the other, I don't have a clue which of these three approaches is the most suited to an advantage gambler in general.
Any input on this would be appreciated.