1. Welcome to VegasMessageBoard
    It appears you are visiting our community as a guest.
    In order to view full-size images, participate in discussions, vote in polls, etc, you will need to Log in or Register.

Too small of a session bankroll by most.

Discussion in 'Casino Gaming' started by parlayboy, Jan 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. parlayboy

    parlayboy Tourist

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
    I have played thousands of hours at the tables. IMO, the single biggest mistake most players make is they have way too small of a session bankroll for their betting patterns and sizes.

    Thus unless they are on a pretty solid mostly-winning streak from the start the inevitable ups and downs hits a down on them and cleans them out.

    Seriously, at table games it is almost RARE that players get up with any chips to cash.

    Other than "hit and run" types that either play for one deck/shoe or craps players who try to jump a "hot roll" it seems to me that the vast majority of players sit down and start with way too little of a buy-in and then either re-up or leave when it is gone. So few have a win goal or loss limit when playing.
     
  2. Kickin

    Kickin Flea

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,414
    Really? Not from my experience. I think a decent number of players (BJ) walk with some profit or walk away even. Sure most will bust out, but I wouldn't call it rare at all for people to walk with chips. Especially being even, that's like a mental stop for a lot of people who are clawing their way out of a hole or slowly giving back a win.

    You're sort of contradicting yourself. If a player loses his session bankroll and walks, how do you know that wasn't his loss limit? It probably was. Some people like to buy in with more than they're prepared to lose, but I think most buy in with a true bankroll for a particular session.

    I do agree that a lot of people probably have too small a trip bankroll for their average bets. But that's a personal preference. I think you should have around 100x your average bet for a trip bankroll for table players. Others might be comfortable with just 50x, others maybe 200x. But you can't really draw any conclusions from what someone buys in for at a table, you have no idea what bankroll they have behind it. And arguably, if you're losing at a table you should probably be happy you didn't buy in for more.
     
  3. numeno

    numeno VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,686
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    10
    That seems like a pretty bold statement.

    So if I sit down with $100 and bet $15+, I assume you think I'm doing something wrong. Why does it matter? Are you telling me that with a larger session bankroll I suddenly will turn the game into my advantage and take money from the casino? Why do you care if I have to leave the table earlier than you would like?
     
  4. mike_m235

    mike_m235 Tourist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,421
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    I think having a set win amount at craps is kind of silly. I usually buy in for $1000. Would you have me cash out when I hit $2000 even if a guy is in the middle of a hot roll? My goal with craps is to win big or lose small. But regardless, I'm not ever leaving after a made point. And if the guy has a huge roll and I'm up big, I'm continuing to play until I get one person throwing and immediate 7 out.

    Normally what I'll do is reestablish a new loss limit. So if I buy in for $1000 and get hot and get up to $2700, for example, I may set my new limit so that I walk away at $2000, then I'll play the $700 as per normal and see if the table is still hot.

    And a 'session bankroll' that is 'too small' is a ridiculous concept. How do you know my goal for the session? Maybe I want to play for as long as I can on a $500 buy in and I'm going to cash out if I hit $1000. If I never hit $1000 and don't cash and instead lose my $500, is that 'wrong?' Not if that's what I intended.

    Everyone has their own way of playing. Just because you play differently doesn't make that person wrong.
     
  5. MikeOPensacola

    MikeOPensacola VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,956
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
    Indeed mike m. Having a win limit is not nearly as important as having a loss limit. I constantly see people chasing their money when they lose, but when they win they do not have nearly the same gusto......makes no sense to me.
     
    Annual Summer Bliss in the Land of Milk and Honey!!!
  6. BreakEven

    BreakEven Low-Roller

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    SEA
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    11
    Based off the # of threads here on the topic, most people don't have a clue what their bankroll should be.

    (I am just like most people :wave:)
     
    Only 2nd trip for year :(
  7. topcard

    topcard Older than the Stardust!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,664
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    82
    I think what PB is suggesting is that, with blackjack anyway, many players underestimate the number hands needed for a more-even distribution of wins and losses.

    If one sits at a $10 table and buys in for $100, (that would be me most of the time), one ought to be prepared to buy in for another $100 if he gets felted.

    The house is gonna win it's 52% of the hands and you're gonna win your 48%...but only if you play long enough (or if you get lucky early on).

    We all know that the "right" way to play a hand does not mean you will win. Double with 11 against a dealer 6, draw a 2 and watch the dealer make an 18. We've all seen it. That doesn't mean you should stop doubling 11 against a 6. Over time, that play will be far more profitable than detrimental. This can often mean that you need to play more hands than $100 might allow you at a $10 table.

    "Money management" is an area that will always generate a wide variety of opinions.
    For me, I budget a trip bankroll of $1500 to $2000 for a 3-night stay - so, I am budgeted to risk $500 to $700 a day on average.

    Even with just $10 bets, I have gone through $500 in my first few hours. That doesn't mean I quit for the day. In fact, I almost never do. I "borrow" from later day's budget money to keep playing. Most of the time, this works, and I make back much (or all) of what I lost early on.
    With blackjack, I think this is just "the odds" playing themselves out. If you play enough hands, eventually the distribution of winning hands will be close to what "the math" says it should be. The same is true when pressing on a good count and backing it down on a negative count. Eventually, over the course of enough hands, those decisions will work to your advantage.
     
    Seems like forever from now, but the flights are booked, so it counts!
  8. numeno

    numeno VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,686
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    10
    I just think he is wrong when he called the smaller buyin a mistake. It is only a mistake if you have goals that that small buyin doesn't meet.

    While I love to play for 4 hour stretches, I have no issue being done at a table in 20 minutes due to bad luck. In no way would this be a mistake, it is one of my expected outcomes. The mistake would actually be buying in for more and then on a bad table I blow through my entire daily bankroll.
     
  9. burdog

    burdog Low-Roller

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    418
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    6
    I am one that defiinitely buys in for too small an amount for a session. But I also know what I am willing to risk at that particular table. Do I win big-RARELY, but I do go home with more than I intended on going home with, i.e. loosing less than expected. And that makes feel safe with my gambling budget and helps start the nest egg for the next trip!
     
  10. boxcars

    boxcars High-Roller

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    604
    Location:
    North Dakota
    I have a different view than some. I go to Vegas to play craps almost exclusively. That's what I enjoy playing -- usually for at least 12 hours a day. If I'm down, I bet smaller. If I'm up, I bet larger. It's entertainment for me. Great if I win, but if I lose, oh well. What I don't do is gamble away more than my budget.

    I could care less about walking away if I'm up a fair amount. That just buys more entertainment time value for me.

    Does this mean I always play 'til I'm broke? No. You'd be missing the point.
     
  11. bubbakitty

    bubbakitty native Texan; born and bred.

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,779
    Location:
    Texas
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    60
    mike_m235

    Normally what I'll do is reestablish a new loss limit. So if I buy in for $1000 and get hot and get up to $2700, for example, I may set my new limit so that I walk away at $2000, then I'll play the $700 as per normal and see if the table is still hot.

    I do this as well. Also at craps. Inevitably I get down to 1800 instead of 2000 because SURELY it will turn around and does not....but it is most pleasing to play with "house money" as you read others do....
     
    1st Super Bowl DT...Panthers / Browns no doubt
  12. mike_m235

    mike_m235 Tourist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,421
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    Yeah, I've thrown away that extra couple hundred the same way on many occasions.
     
  13. seviay

    seviay High-Roller

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    667
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    10
    When you're playing with house money, it always seems "okay" to give back a little bit of a win in hopes of getting on another hot run and taking even more. As long as you don't piss back all of your win, I'd say that's the only way to do it. Would you be willing to lose 200-300 of your win at a chance of winning another 2k off of them? I know I would
     
  14. Nevyn

    Nevyn VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,188
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    9
    This is entirely a matter of what you want to get out of your play.

    If you are looking to play for a certain amount of time, and it's not short, then having the appropriate budget to cut your risk of ruin makes perfect sense.

    Likewise, if losing sessions drive you nuts and you are happy banking small wins relative to what you risked, buying in with a deep stack makes sense.

    The math of it is basically the same over the long run as comparing progressive vs flat betting.

    If you buy in deep stack, you'll get felted less often and have a "normal" looking curve of session results centered around a small loss.

    If you buy in with a short stack, you'll get felted a much higher percentage of the time, but when you do win, you'll book bigger wins relative to the amount you were willing to lose.

    And if you compare two people doing the same approach, with the same total amount wagered over the course of a year, their expected loss will be the same.
     
  15. mike_m235

    mike_m235 Tourist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,421
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    It does. But I've gone on really hot craps rolls only to watch the table go cold right after. In all of those cases I should have quit just a bit earlier than I did. That fifth straight point-seven roll is telling you something :peace:
     
  16. DonnyC

    DonnyC VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    8
    Lets remember...there is no such thing. The moment the money is given to me at a table...it is my money (although I hear the point you are trying to make).

    I wonder if the perception of 'house money' is more critical than the content of this topic itself?
     
  17. topcard

    topcard Older than the Stardust!

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    2,664
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    82
    Donny... I think most people referring to "house money" actually mean "gains".

    It is far less stressful risking gains than your original bankroll.

    "Won" money, if lost, doesn't seem to hurt as much... and when it results in even greater gains, it's downright beautiful!
    :beer:
     
    Seems like forever from now, but the flights are booked, so it counts!
  18. LV_Bound

    LV_Bound VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    4,901
    Location:
    Florida
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    18
    Thanks, I wasn't sure how to phrase it.
    Even a proficient card counter needs a good size bankroll to weather the storm and come out ahead.

    My wife and I use only $100 bankroll at the $5 BJ table. Enough to have some fun but not enough to weather any storm. Sure $500 would be better. I guess it really determines just how much of a storm you really want to weather.
     
  19. Hogman

    Hogman VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,109
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    70
    I am not sure whether I saw where they suggested that you have 20 units or 40 units to sit down with. I think $100 at $5 table should work well but not at $15 table. I remember when I would take $20 to a $1 table in 1977 and could play for hours..
     
    First Trip 2017
  20. mike_m235

    mike_m235 Tourist

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,421
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    12
    If you tell me your bet size and how long you want to play, it's pretty easy to calculate the risk of ruin for any given bankroll. Sure, there are a few unknowns like how many hands you'll get per hour, and the kind of rules you're playing with. But you can get it close enough to know that if you want to play a certain number of hands and have a 95% chance of not going broke, you need x number of bets.

    But I didn't realize that we were talking about the math of it, and really only someone who absolutely had a reason to need a certain number of hands would need that kind of analysis.
     
Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.