II Managementgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Team NT : One Thread |
x
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
- Coordinate recruitment of new members.
- Ensure all members are routinely tested to meet team standards.
- Establish concept of play for each team trip.
- Establish and coordinate bankroll for each trip.
- Ensure all players are using betting schemes in accordance with team guidelines.
- Ensure any re-sizing of bet levels is performed in an accurate manner.
- Establish all facets of a team trip, including dates, number of players, location(s), bet levels and preferred casinos to play.
- Prepare and monitor session schedules for each player to ensure maximum potential for any given trip, while at the same time minimizing risk of over-exposure of a player in any one casino.
- Conduct or coordinate training as deemed necessary in any aspect of blackjack play (counting, signaling, tactics, security measures).
- Monitor team expenses.
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
A 10% Administrative Fee shall be deducted from all winning banks. This figure shall be calculated from the Gross Win after team expenses are deducted. The Team Manager, will receive 50% of such administrative fee. The other 50% shall be divided equally among Assistant Managers and the Team Bookkeeper.
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
In the event of a resignation or dismissal of the Team Manager, the remaining Charter Members of the team shall nominate a new Team Manager. This selection will be made solely by the Charter Members by their separate votes. A Team Manager may be dismissed by majority vote by all other team members.
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
this may need to be reworded to reflect the generally non-democratic nature of the team (as per above policies).how about something like:
In the event of a resignation or dismissal of the Team Manager, the remaining members of the team shall nominate (and vote for) a new Team Manager. Simple majority vote decides the issue.A Team Manager may be dismissed by majority vote by all other team members.
Upon selection of a new Team Manager, any member may choose to leave the team without penalty as per article I, above.
-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999
I agree. Will revise.
-- Anonymous, October 31, 1999
Since it has become impossible for the Team Manager to participate in every trip, we have selected Assistant Managers who will be physically present on certain trips. The Team Manager will run all the team matters pertaining to the relative trip, as defined in Section A above, while communicating the live duties to the Assistant Manager. During a given trip, the Assistant Manager is empowered to make decisions regarding tactical approaches and game plans. All decisions made by an Assistant Manager, must be conveyed to the Team Manager at the first reasonable opportunity. Selection of Assistant Managers shall be made by the Team Manager.
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
Our bet sizing will be based on a "Modified One-Third Kelly" method. This is figured using simulations to first determine the advantage a player has at a given count, based on the game played. The following method will be used for each count system used by our players. For illustration, let's refer to the Uston SS Count for our benchmark double-deck game with rules being S17, DAS and penetration at 67%.
Step One
Using John Auston's BJRM software with the above variables, the following represents the player's advantage a different counts:
Count Advantage - 4 0.139 - 2 0.52 0 0.928 +2 1.411 +4 1.917 +6 2.352 +8 2.899
Step Two
The formula to determine the dollar amount of the bet at a given count is as follows: Advantage / 1.21 x Team Bankroll x .33 = Bet Size At That Given Count.
Note: The formula requires dividing the advantage by 1.21, which represents the variance, which cannot be overlooked. Multiplying by .33 is to determine one-third of "Full-Kelly."
After performing the calculations, the following represents the bet sizes arrived at:
Count Bet Size - 4 $ 38 - 2 $142 0 $253 +2 $385 +4 $523 +6 $641
Step Three
As you can see, if we were to strictly follow this concept, as the count "skyrockets" the bet size can increase well beyond a reasonable comfort level for live play. Therefore it is necessary to place a "cap" on our top bet in any case. The formula (and this is a VERY conservative approach) to determine such a cap is: Bankroll / 165 = Maximum Bet. Taking our $100,000 bankroll we arrive at a maximum bet of $606.
Looking in the other direction, the Initial Running Count for the double-deck game using the Uston SS Count is -8. Already at a -4 count, the bet size is noted at $38! For practical purposes in real world play, you can only scale down so much. Therefore, we will use the minimum acceptable benchmark spread of 1 - 6 in this game, whereby a player will be able to bet $100 at these non-advantageous counts (Note: Most players will be creative with scaling down, spreading to multiple hands and mixing chip colors to optimize their games).
Step Four
Taking this new "twist" into consideration, and rounding to the nearest unit, we arrive at the following bet scheme:
Count Bet Size - 4 $100 - 1 $200 +1 $300 +3 $400 +4 $500 +6 $600 Note: At some counts we are "in-between" therefore we get creative.
Plugging the above bet scheme into BJRM, it results in a SCORE of $ 66.24 and a VERY conservative Risk of Ruin of 0.28%.
Taking the above steps for determining bet size into consideration, we can choose to resize our bets after each progressive $20,000 increase or decrease in the overall team bankroll. If this occurs during a trip, the bet sizing (calculated in advance) can be adjusted and put into effect following the team meeting.
Note: Since we must stay aware of acceptable bet levels to the casinos in which we play, we will have a maximum bet of no more than $1000 regardless of how rich the bankroll position is.
-- Anonymous, October 18, 1999
first: i think that our 'benchmark game' should be the worst game we'd be willing to play. DD, S17, DAS, 67% pen is not the worst. sometimes we play H17. my point here is simply that if we base our ROR on the worst game we're going to play (instead of the average game), the the ROR figure we come up with is a conservative estimate... a worst case scenario. then when we do better than that, it will be a pleasant surprise.
second point: i think that if we apply the steps as outlined in this article to a 6-deck game, we won't have a playable game. this is off the top of my head, but we should check it out. is suspect that if you take your advantage*BR*0.33 at each count (as outlined in the 'Team Risk of Ruin Method' article), and then cap the betting at BRw165, we may not have a playable spread for this game. not sure on this, but it should be checked out.
Taking the above steps for determining bet size into consideration, we can choose to resize our bets after each progressive $20,000 increase or decrease in the overall team bankroll.
should be re-worded to "...we WILL resize our bets after each progresseive $20,000 increase..."
it should not be left so vague... there should be no doubt as to when these bet re-sizing's will occur.
i guess that was three points... not two!
-- Anonymous, November 01, 1999