Double21: Is this a good game?

[Double21]

Let's assume I can get 200 hands per hour playing a double deck game; H17; DAS and 50% penetration. The hourly ev is about the same as a 75% penetration game with the same betting strategy and rules, along with 100 hands per hour. The one hour standard deviation (downside) is about 24% higher on the 50% game, but that is apparently due to getting twice the hands. On the upside, the one hour standard deviation is 19% higher but again due to the greater number of hands. On an adjusted basis (i.e. two hours for the 100 hands per hour game giving 75% penetration) the upside standard deviation is about 20% less. The ROR for this 50% penetration game is significantly higher than the 75% benchmark.

If you can get 200 hands per hour at a 50% penetration game versus 100 hands per hour for a 75% game, is it a good play? Opinions would be appreciated.

[Mr.X]

> Let's assume I can get 200 hands per hour
> playing a double deck game; H17; DAS and 50%
> penetration. The hourly ev is about the same
> as a 75% penetration game with the same
> betting strategy and rules, along with 100
> hands per hour.
I don't have a BJ simulator (insert your own joke here), but I strongly disagree with the premise that a 50% pen game with 200 hands/hour has the same EV as a 75% game with 100 hands/hour. I would definetly think that the 75% game is more than twice as strong, all other things being equal, than a 50% game. I think it's significantly stronger than twice as much. Anyone with a BJ simulator? Without wonging, I'd say it's about 3-5 times as strong. With wonging, 4-6 times as strong.

[Don Schlesinger]

> If you can get 200 hands per hour at a 50%
> penetration game versus 100 hands per hour
> for a 75% game, is it a good play? Opinions
> would be appreciated.

No. The SCORE of the 75% game is almost 33% higher than the c-SCORE of the 50% game.

Also, there is no such thing as upside or downside standard deviation, for our purposes. There is just SD.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

For a fair comparison, when you change penetration you should adjust the unit size and betting ramp for equal risk. The below chart shows the win rate versus the penetration for five different hands per hour rates for 26 penetrations given your stated rules. The unit size and betting ramp are adjusted for each penetration. The chart indicates that doubling the hands/hour no where near makes up for the loss in penetration.

Chart

[MathProf]

But I think you answered it. You said that the hourly EV was the same, but the RoR was much better for the 75% game. If the EV is the same, then the one with the lower RoR is better.

There is another way to look at this. Since the RoR is lower for the 75% game, you could bet bigger in that game, which would raise your hourly EV.

This is really a crucial part of the SCORE concept. With Optimal Betting, you bet sizes will be bigger in deeper penetration games, which will be reflected in higher earnings.

As an example, I plugged a H17-DAS game into BJRM with 50% and 75% pen. Now the raw SCOREs were 27 and 80, per hundred rounds. Part of the reason for this is that the optimal units were better in the 75% game: $25 vs.$132. The win rate per unit is a little better in the 75% game, but you can use much bigger units and keep the same RoR.

>
> Let's assume I can get 200 hands per hour
> playing a double deck game; H17; DAS and 50%
> penetration. The hourly ev is about the same
> as a 75% penetration game with the same
> betting strategy and rules, along with 100
> hands per hour. The one hour standard
> deviation (downside) is about 24% higher on
> the 50% game, but that is apparently due to
> getting twice the hands. On the upside, the
> one hour standard deviation is 19% higher
> but again due to the greater number of
> hands. On an adjusted basis (i.e. two hours
> for the 100 hands per hour game giving 75%
> penetration) the upside standard deviation
> is about 20% less. The ROR for this 50%
> penetration game is significantly higher
> than the 75% benchmark.

> If you can get 200 hands per hour at a 50%
> penetration game versus 100 hands per hour
> for a 75% game, is it a good play? Opinions
> would be appreciated.

[Double21]

> Thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond. In my case, the betting ramp can't be adjusted because all I can get out due to club rules is 2X$100. At times I can get out 3X$100.

Don; could you please elaborate more on why this 50% game is poor?

> >

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don; could you please elaborate more on why
> this 50% game is poor?

I didn't say it was poor; I said the other choice you offered was better.

A 50% pen game stinks, whether you play 100, 200, or 300 hands per hour. Every game has an EV, a variance, and a SCORE. If the SCORE is lousy, you can improve your hourly win by playing faster, but you're still just playing a lousy game quickly. That doesn't turn it into a good game! :-)

Don

[Double21]

>

Here's why I'm pushing you for more insight Don. Yes---I can play 75% penetration DD games; H17 and DAS but don't want to burn them out. Because I'm usually playing with one and sometimes two other players, my hands hover between 100-125 per hour at these games. There are a few of these 50% penetration games (same rules) available to me which, for a variety of reasons, I can usually play heads up and get about 200 hands per hour. Granted, if I wasn't worried about being barred at the better games that's where I would camp out! But isn't the 50% penetration game with 200 hands per hour a good alternative under these circumstances?

>

[Double21]

Terrific chart Norm--thanks! In my case, the bet ramp is limited (due to table maximums) and I get to it fast. By playing this 50% penetration game fast (i.e. about 200 hands per hour), my hourly ev is about the same as 100 hands per hour in a 75% game. The risk is higher in the 50% game but still less than 2% (adjusted for errors in my play). On the surface this seems like a playable game---the others are better but I don't want to burn them out. What do you think?

[Norm Wattenberger]

Yeh, life ain't perfect. Make the best out of what you can find.

[Don Schlesinger]

> But isn't the 50% penetration game with 200
> hands per hour a good alternative under
> these circumstances?

It's better than not playing. It's just not better than the other game, which, really, was the only question you originally asked.

Go ahead and play it. You now understand all the parameters associated with the two games and you'll know just what you're getting with each.

Good luck!

Don

[Double21]

Thanks again Don for the help. You are not alone in believing the 50% option is a poor choice!