I shall suggest a slightly different partitioning which may make more sense to you. A word about "risk of ruin. I would not try to discourage proportional betting.
The "gambling expense" partition is a logical way to look at the rent for the "office" from which you work, much like the nj online casino revenue of a lawyer or accountant, and is no less a real expense than room and food.
Simulation of Blackjack Bet Size Strategies The variance for the outcome of a hand of blackjack is about 1.
This has the pleasant result of more than doubling your expected win while holding the likelihood of loss to approximately one-half, no matter how long a series of wagers you plan to make.
The wisdom of table-hopping shoe games becomes very apparent with a divided bankroll, as your investment dollars increase as your expense dollars decrease. The fallacy in this conclusion is, of course, that when you win, your average win is much larger than is your average loss when you lose; and you will win as often as you will lose.
It is this old "risk versus reward" concept revisited. Where does this leave us? So, a simulation that gives a reasonable weighing to these possible outcomes would require a very large number of samples. These are a special class to which I am guessing you do blackjack optimal bet size belong, and to which I shall not presume to give advice. Find whom you think you are in the tables, and you can see what perfect proportional betting means, both in average trip win and the risk of suffering your definition of ruin.
Table entries with very large average wins are unreliable. This is because the average tends to be dominated by particularly profitable, and quite unlikely, series. Are you going for a day? For purposes of the rest of us, I have assumed trips to Las Vegas or other gambling Meccas, be they occasional or frequent, are made with a total budget determined at the moment of leaving home.
The "ruin" percentages, however, are likely to be quite accurate. That is my stop loss, I guess, not my bankroll.
If you have a "chickening out" level, then high expectation hands pose a greater risk of "ruin" than do low positive expectation hands. Two possibilities not including "barring" exist that may cut short your gambling activity: The results of the simulation are tabulated in the manner I felt was most easily understood and used.
So you may wish to accommodate these zero and negative expectation hands as a separate type of "expense" item in your trip budget, perhaps further partitioning the "gambling" partition into "gambling expense," which pays for your seat at the table during hands which are even or negative, and "gambling investment," from which your positive expectation wagers are taken and to which your positive expectation wager wins are credited.
To be proper for you, these must be balanced, one against the other, because more of one necessarily means more of the other.
Entries that appear eligible for such reduction in confidence will be more blackjack torn to appear for higher Kelly fractions and higher expectations. All of the composite data, also, are likely to be quite accurate.
But if you wish to really understand proportional betting, and to find your comfort zone as a function of expectation, The Leib Criterion and the accompanying tables should give you what you need. This budget is typically composed of two distinct partitions: At a loss to tell you what your style of game selection and play will yield, I referred to Dr.
Positive expectations do not come like that so some composite distribution of the positive continuum must be used. I shall provide you with the information necessary to make that decision.
Betting double Kelly with the remaining "gambling investment" portion might call for smaller bets than if you were betting full-Kelly based on your total bankroll.