The Cuss of Variance
"Variance. This can be determined by subtracting the value from each possible outcome in a game or hand, squaring the differences and multiplying each square by its probability of occurring and then summing the total of the product".
(Thanks to Bootlegger for his definition of variance.) However, this definition only makes some sense to those who have a deeper-than-average understanding of math. And even then, is it really going to help anyone win?
I ramble on... I note that our bottom line is always dependent on the dealer hand performance. I expect to win on a long-term average, about 42% of my hands, lose 48% and tie the rest. Doubles, splits and 3:2 blackjack are supposed to get me close to a winning game, if I play perfect BS. And then if I'm a competent, efficient cardcounter, this is supposed to tip the scales over into my favor... I hope. But unfortunately, the dealer hand has just as much chance as I do for scoring a needed high card; no matter my genius-level as a card counter; if in fact...
Countless times I saw the dealer hand slaying the entire table by scoring 5 or 6-card 20s or 21s. (Early in such a shoe is surely the right time to leave or request a shuffle...) Then I also often saw the dealer hand rarely score a bust even off stiffs, for consec shoes. Conversely, I witnessed times when the dealer seems to bust off just about anything, including A. In such a shoe, they might bust in 50% of the rounds. Who can predict such?
Oddly enough, I have seen so many times when I do make most of my splits & doubles (even 11s V 10s), and other times when I go seemingly forever and make very few indeed, damn it.
These trends when they are happening are best taken note and acted upon I believe. Especially negative trends. Instead of continuing to lose whilst waiting for the tide to turn, I now vamoose from there.
Variance is a *****, but there is obviously ffffar more to it than Boot reckons.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks