It occurs to me that ...

[Bodarc]

Option A involves an 80% chance you win $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing. Option B guarantees you win $3,000 for sure

.80X4,000=3,200
1. X3,000=3,000

Difference 200

Would I take a 20% chance of losing it all for a measly $ 200?

If this was a 1 time deal, I would not. If it was a continuing bet, I would.

[marriedputter]

.80X4,000=3,200
1. X3,000=3,000

Difference 200

Would I take a 20% chance of losing it all for a measly $ 200?

If this was a 1 time deal, I would not. If it was a continuing bet, I would.

I still would because the $1000 difference is just not that much to me. I would go for the $4,000. If it were $4,000,000 vs. $3,000,000 though, we would be in agreement.

[Boz]

I don't understand the point of this thread. I hate the implication that an AP doesn't care if he loses his entire bankroll, so long as he had +EV! It's so trite and wrong. I don't care about +EV, I care about actual results. I know there are some people who track their EV--which makes no sense to me. Why? Stats junkie? EV is a math tool used to achieve those positive results. Just like any ploppy, I'd take luck any day. Unfortunately, I have the knowledge that luck has a way of evening out and not actually existing, unless you wanna equate luck with variance.

I've never noticed an attachment to money being an actual handicap to a newbie. It's thinking card counting is a get-rich-quick scheme--that's the handicap. They have a $200 bankroll and they bet $70 per hand, and they don't think perfect basic strategy is important enough to learn because the counting part is what's important. I'd say not being attached enough to the money they have is a handicap. It takes discipline and patience. And that's what the newbie lacks. All these sucky non-"AP's" don't lose money to the casino because they are too attached to their money--it's because they read a paragraph in a book about card counting and pissed away a bunch of their money for no good reason.

[Three]

I know there are some people who track their EV--which makes no sense to me. Why? Stats junkie?

There are lots of reasons. Here are some of the best:
1) To know how close your results are tracking to EV.
2) Tracking how good a day you had concerning wonging etc. All you can do is maximize EV and hope for the best. If you log a low EV consistently you should consider changing your approach to the game.
3) Errors in your play can be flagged by consistently coming in below EV.

That being said playing in the casino has constantly changing dynamics that the sim will never accurately represent. You have varying pen by dealer. Players jumping in and out of the shoe. You have heat considerations. You have game speed considerations. You have dealer error considerations. When wonging out these things are considered but also table availability number of cards left in the shoe. If leaving the casino is the option how far to the next game if your aren't calling it a day. Then you have varying opportunities and table betting restrictions based on time of day and casino procedures like opening new tables and changing cards. They are all dynamic situations with some benefits that can be planned for if you know the casino procedural rhythms and player tends. You can do your best but can't plan accurately knowing all this. You make your best plans to get the best of what you are looking for and make daily adjustments according to what you actually find that day. Such a changing dynamic environment can never be simmed accurately. I sim what I can accurately and if I use my ability to try to maximize adjusting to the dynamics of playing in the casino I know the sim results will be conservative.

So factoring in the dynamics of actual casino play, the plusses of tracking EV get watered down a lot.

[Boz]

So factoring in the dynamics of actual casino play, the plusses of tracking EV get watered down a lot.

Well, I'd think so! And it's impossible to track each hand without some sort of illegal device, so you're guestimating. I think it's absolutely useless and a giant waste of time.

[Stealth]

Well, I'd think so! And it's impossible to track each hand without some sort of illegal device, so you're guestimating. I think it's absolutely useless and a giant waste of time.

If you are a "lone wolf" then certainly you only need to know "actual results", any type of other affiliations such as small or large teams (or a professional, IMO) would be foolish to not track the results for a myriad of valid reasons.

It may be impossible to track every hand but it is not impossible to have a tracing protocol and systems that is accurate enough to make comparisons of your sessions results to model's like cvdata and cvcx.

[Boz]

If you are a "lone wolf" then certainly you only need to know "actual results", any type of other affiliations such as small or large teams (or a professional, IMO) would be foolish to not track the results for a myriad of valid reasons.

It may be impossible to track every hand but it is not impossible to have a tracing protocol and systems that is accurate enough to make comparisons of your sessions results to model's like cvdata and cvcx.

Well, yeah, I think team management would want to do it to prevent theft. But I don't see why I would want to track my own EV. Basically, tracking your EV is like a check on whether you are making mistakes. Well, to me, that's like always wearing a helmet and kneepads when you ride your bicycle. It doesn't really prevent the fall, it just makes me swerve at you if I see you dressed like that.

[Stealth]

Option A involves an 80% chance you win $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing. Option B guarantees you win $3,000 for sure

I believe the value of these two options can be evaluated with the concept of certainty equivalency (CE), which when used in Blackjack is fundamentally risk adjusted EV. MIT teams paid players using this concept.