Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Risk Averse Surrender Index for 8-8 v. 10, A Question for Don

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Risk Averse Surrender Index for 8-8 v. 10, A Question for Don

    I saw Don's post on another site saying that the Hi-Lo index in PBJ, Table 33 for 8-8 v. 10 is wrong. It should be +1 if NDAS and +2 if DAS.

    Don,
    What is the risk averse HiLo index to surrender 8-8 v. 10 for S17, DAS. 6 or 8 deck?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    There are no risk-averse indices for surrender. RA indices are created when extra money is put on the table via splits and doubles, and you need to calculate whether the added gain is warranted by taking on the extra risk. When you surrender, you reduce risk by lowering the variance of the possible outcomes.

    Don

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    There are no risk-averse indices for surrender. RA indices are created when extra money is put on the table via splits and doubles, and you need to calculate whether the added gain is warranted by taking on the extra risk. When you surrender, you reduce risk by lowering the variance of the possible outcomes.

    Don
    Think about what you just said. You have the hand you always split supposedly (8,8vT) and the index to decide whether to split or surrender would therefore be RA because it is a split index with the other option being surrender. Remember this is 8,8vT. I just surrender the hand no matter what as my RA index. My playing count is a derivative of HIOPT II and has almost no correlation to the play so having any index would be pretty useless. HILO has a better correlation but it is still not good.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the guy who basically invented risk-averse indexes.

    Surrendering slightly below the index with a large bet out should lead to an increase in SCORE/CE.
    The Cash Cow.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tthree View Post
    Think about what you just said. You have the hand you always split supposedly (8,8vT) and the index to decide whether to split or surrender would therefore be RA because it is a split index with the other option being surrender. Remember this is 8,8vT. I just surrender the hand no matter what as my RA index. My playing count is a derivative of HIOPT II and has almost no correlation to the play so having any index would be pretty useless. HILO has a better correlation but it is still not good.
    Thanks Tthree and moo. On a sim that I have that is a couple of years old, the EV index was +1 and the RA index was -3, but at the time Norm told me there was a bug in the program that showed the wrong amount of EV for the alternatives but that the index was right.
    When I saw Don's post saying that the EV index should be +2, it got me wondering whether -3 is right for RA.
    I will probably follow Tthree's advice and always surrender cause I rarely play a negative count, but I am curious if anyone has an RA index for this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member bigplayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,807


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the guy who basically invented risk-averse indexes.

    Surrendering slightly below the index with a large bet out should lead to an increase in SCORE/CE.
    Except that with 88 vs 10 when it's correct to split you never have a large bet on the table and it's always correct to surrender with anything other than a minimum bet on the table. As for me I always surrender 88 vs 10 as part of my overall surrender strategy. (Just like I stand on 16 vs 10)

  7. #7
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,504


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bigplayer View Post
    Except that with 88 vs 10 when it's correct to split you never have a large bet on the table and it's always correct to surrender with anything other than a minimum bet on the table. As for me I always surrender 88 vs 10 as part of my overall surrender strategy. (Just like I stand on 16 vs 10)
    Same here. 88v10 is a defensive split and -EV unless you have hole card information.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by bigplayer View Post
    Except that with 88 vs 10 when it's correct to split you never have a large bet on the table and it's always correct to surrender with anything other than a minimum bet on the table. As for me I always surrender 88 vs 10 as part of my overall surrender strategy. (Just like I stand on 16 vs 10)
    If the round starts high, and drops off some, you can have a large bet out, with a playing decision at a count below the index, but the risk-averse play is to surrender.

    Say you have $500. EV surrender is -$250, EV split is -$249. But the split requires you to risk $1000 in total. You're putting $750 at risk to pick up $1. Which play do you think gets you to the long run faster?
    The Cash Cow.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Say you have $500. EV surrender is -$250, EV split is -$249. But the split requires you to risk $1000 in total. You're putting $750 at risk to pick up $1. Which play do you think gets you to the long run faster?
    Now that puts things in a perspective everyone can understand, I hope.

Similar Threads

  1. Risk-Averse, how much does it help your ROR.
    By BlackHead in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-27-2015, 11:39 AM
  2. cv risk averse index generation
    By Charlie Mosby in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 10:17 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 09:13 PM
  4. AsIseeIt: Risk-Averse
    By AsIseeIt in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 10:17 AM
  5. .: risk averse indices
    By . in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2002, 10:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.