Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hhcfreebie
Sure, more bankroll decrease the risk of ruin but does it make any sense?
We are trying to minimize the risk of ruin of our overall bankroll, not just for a promotion deal. Since inter casino do not carry over WR when we go under half of our deposit, it is totally pointless to deposit more. The more we deposit, the more likely we will finish WR and we will loose more due to more money being wagered.
I'd say we should balance the risk (or variance) and EV during our play. The risk of ruin for each deal is meaningless IMO. |
I tend to think by minimizing the risk-of-ruin of any session bankroll, I am minimizing the risk to my overall bankroll. With a larger session bankroll, I can recover about half the time from a point where I otherwise would have lost my total session bankroll. Sure, I wager more, but, hopefully, with the benefit of retaining more overall dollars in the long run. But, like you imply, maybe the other half the time I lose more than I would have lost by busting out.
Wouldn't you think with an extra $1000 deposit, I have a pretty good chance of getting $1 ahead before I lose the $1000? If I do, I've only lost $79 instead of $80.
How does one figure out the chances of losing 1000 units before gaining 1 unit anyway?
If risk of ruin were meaningless for each deal, wouldn't we all bet table max on every deal?
To maximize bankroll would you play a $1/$1 play $25 with a $1 table minimum any differently than a $1000/$1000 play $25000 deal?
Anyway, like I said, perhaps depositing more is worth a thought, depending on how (flat-bet, mild negative or positive progression system, full martingdale, etc.) and how much one like's to bet, and the risk one is willing to take.
I think, as you say, it's a bit of a balancing act.
Ultimately, you are probably right, and Chucho has the answer to his question.
Apologies to all for perhaps too much 19th hole.
6th May 2004, 12:50 AM
Linear Mode
