Could CVDATA generate playing indices base on bet variartions?

**seriousplayer** · 03-07-2015, 07:51 AM

Is CVDATA capable of generating indices by taking into account bet spreads and not EVs? The indices generates for all card counting system using CVDATA take into account when to deviate from basic strategy, but it ignores the bet spread. Suppose I have a big bet out and I get an 16 vs 10 and late surrender is not available. What is the most optimal strategy when factoring in the big bet when the True Count is >= 0. In other word, I want to generate a set of indices that deviate from basic strategy base on the bet and NOT the count. My purpose is to see if such strategy improves win rate.

Another reason is that the strategy my be good for cover play.

**Bodarc** · 03-07-2015, 08:48 AM

Optimum bets are based on EV which is based on counts. Betting without taking into account EV and ROR is just gambling and dangerous. Think Kelly and ROR.

I am beginning to think some people are going to cover play themselves into bankruptcy.

**DSchles** · 03-07-2015, 08:48 AM

Sounds like you're trying to reinvent the concept of risk-averse indices. Either it's that or what you're asking makes no sense. In your example, you would stand on 16 v. 10 if TC>0 no matter what your bet is. How could hitting make things better, from any point of view?

Don

**Norm** · 03-07-2015, 09:00 AM

What Don said. CVData can generate RA indices, which take into account both the variance and EV at each count, or EV-max indices which only take into account EV at each count.

**Three** · 03-07-2015, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Bodarc

I am beginning to think some people are going to cover play themselves into bankruptcy.

The cover ideas I have seen in this forum has had me worried about the same thing. When cover doesn't cost much and gets you past the play correlation chart skills check it is worth it. But when you pass a skills check because you are playing a losing game you would probably have been better off if you failed the skills check and got the tap. Your edge in a straight counting game is tiny and you can't give up any of that edge willy nilly. There just isn't a lot there to start with. By playing the game with a higher edge cover becomes worth it. Like if you can spread 16:1 without cover but cover can let you spread 40:1 or 60:1 then you are getting value for your cover rather than giving away your edge. This is how cover should be used a trade off for a higher dollar hourly and a cost to your % advantage. That is how RA indices work. You give up a calculated loss on RA plays to your EV on that play but it allows you to bet more at each advantage TC so your overall EV is higher. You give up a small percentage of your edge on your average bet but your average bet is higher so you actually make more money per bet on average. If you can't spread/bet larger cover has a limited value to no value at all.

Then quite often people consider really expensive cover. That is just suicide. And I don't think they are planning to bet more aggressively just use it to hope it helps wit longevity which they may not even need to begin with. They are probably betting so low that even if they get noticed the casino is not likely to care until they have won enough money. Is it really better for you to hit that lifetime win threshold slower? It is probably the same amount either way.