FunkyChicken said:Taking off another thread, is there a list/discussion somewhere of the best risk adverse strategies (i.e. if you are risk adverse, the plays you can make to lower the variance with the most minimal drop in EV?). I'm assuming they all come into play mostly with doubling down and splitting.
I can understand why they aren't too popular. Usually doubling down and splitting are the things that I have the most fun doing while playing BJ. Still, I would like to know about them.
sage01 said:Ray: I just looked at the Illustrious 18 in BlackJack Attack.
If you don't know the count, how to you develop what are the best plays to not split or not DD? (both of which reduce the EV and the variance)
I'm not sure how to read the table on page 61(2nd edition) without the index number
stainless steel rat said:RA indices are called "indices" because they are basic strategy departure plays that are based on the count. :) I suppose a pure B/S player could look at the wizard's web site, and look at the double/split plays that only slightly increase the EV, and then just remember to not make those plays, since any double or split increases risk/variance...
But the house edge is going to creep upward as well, so you might decrease variance, but you decrease your EV as well...
As I've mentioned before, the most risk-averse play of all is to just not play. :) Otherwise, the game is full of risk...
Ray said:Yes, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and I've never been able to justify that kind of strategy. What may I ask is the benefit other than a perceived smoothing of variance at some unknown loss?
FunkyChicken said:I don't think its having your cake and eating it too -- it seems to me to be a smart play. If you have a slightly positive EV, would you rather risk it all on one bet? or risk it over the next 1000 bets? That answer seems obvious. Thus, with a positive EV, its best to do as many trials as possible so that you actually hit the positive EV and kill the variance. (And likewise with negative EV games, the best thing to do is make one big bet).
Of course, you can't make your bet too little or it will take forever to make any money and it won't be worth your time. But taking small steps to greatly reduce variance while only slightly hampering your EV seems smart to me. Wouldn't you rather bet $25 a hand over 100 trials with a +0.53 EV, say, than bet $2500 on your next hand with a +0.54 EV? Obviously that's an extreme example, but I think it makes RA strategies seem rational and attractive.
stainless steel rat said:I seem to be missing something here.
If I run a sim and ask CVData to produce optimal indices, are these therefore RA indices? I've always thought that reducing risk also must, by definition, also reduce the overall EV.
How does RA indices avoid that pitfall and why would anyone use anything but RA indices if they maximize the EV and are better than the normal indices. What am I missing???
QFIT said:CVData can generate either Risk Averse or EV-Maximizing indexes. If you ask CVData to generate RA indexes, then use CVCX to generate a betting ramp based on those indexes; then EV will drop, unit size will increase by a greater level and SCORE/WinRate will increase - given the same risk. This is one of the reasons that EV is not a great measure of a strategy.
The only reason not to use RA indexes is if it is impractical to increase the unit size (e.g. you have a huge bankroll.)
Ray said:It appears to me that optimal RA indexes would stray from using mostly integers and that would complicate things. Instead of +2 it may be +2.15,etc. Otherwise, it would seem reasonable to say that RA numbers should apply to all count systems and strategies. If this is the rub on RA, I can see why when you consider things like rounding. Rounding to what?
stainless steel rat said:OK, so what you are saying is that using RA indices I can bet bigger, with the same RoR and lower EV, but have a better hourly win rate because of the bigger bets??
If that is the case, why would not everyone just use RA indices all the time, and call the "other" indices (Won'g usual hi-lo numbers for example) something else since they would appear to be worse in most all situations???
I guess what I am asking is why are not the "optimal hi-lo indices" RA by default, since that seems to maximize the win rate?? It appears to be so because of changing the bet unit/ramp which leads to confusion???
This kind of goes back to an older discussion (not with you) about variance, and whether you think game X has higher or lower variance than game Y. And one says "X" because the SD number for that game is bigger, while the other says "Y" because the rules for that same are so good you can use a bigger betting unit to obtain the same RoR...
Why don't all counting systems use these numbers to start with?
FunkyChicken said:You only get a higher win rate if you keep your ROR the same, right? If you are open to having a higher ROR, then the better EV would give you a higher win rate -- you would just be risking more. Its only when you bet less with a higher EV to keep the ROR the same that you do not have as high of a win rate, right? or am I confused?
sagefr0g said:hmm seems risk averse indices have come a long way since Schlesinger wrote about them in Blackjack Attack. seems back then he likened using them to chicken soup for a dead man. the attitude being what can it hurt? :)
best regards,
mr fr0g
Sonny said:
Of course I'm obsessive! Why else would I buy software with a Beat to Death setting? :)
-Sonny-
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!