See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 55

Thread: How Much Would You Bet in This Situation

  1. #27
    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 dogman_1234 View Post
    You are also discounting a possible natural draw from the second card. This should increase variance as well for a 10 card. See Don's post above.
    Now would that type of increased variance warrant a reduction in bet? Thread I started in the subscription forum was about controlling swings by betting more when variance is from increased payoffs and betting less when variance is from increasing your bet beyond the original bet. It was for a game other than BJ but the premise could translate into BJ in this case.

  2. #28


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Variance is variance. The lower the variance, the better.

    If my math/logic is correct, getting the blackjack is worth ~11.53% of the return in this situation. If you do not get an ace, you're not going to be in a super awesome situation of ~14% advantage when you only had the ten. You're going to end up with something in the 3-4% advantage area. Of course getting another ten (or a 9) is going to be the next best thing, but that happens 4/13 of the time and makes up for a huge amount of your advantage. So 6/13'ths of the time you have a good to great hand. The rest of the time you have a pretty bad hand.


    It's pretty obvious the variance comes from getting the blackjack, but that doesn't mean it warrants an increase or the same level of bet. You do not want variance.


    To understand it more simply, imagine if the game wasn't blackjack, but you had the same conditions (with a ~14% advantage). You only get paid if your other card is an Ace, otherwise you lose. 12/13 of the time you lose your bet, say, $100. 1/13 of the time you win $1,382. Certainly, or at least logically, you wouldn't think, "Wow I have a 14% advantage I'm going to make a big bet! This is the kinda variance I like! Not that other variance, the other variance is bad." Instead, you'd determine the variance (I'm too lazy to do that), what fraction of kelly you play at, then bet accordingly.

    No such thing as variance being "good". lol
    "Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]

  3. #29
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Very in depth analysis I hope to remember should it ever happen. I've had the dealer play out the round even though an Ace was under a 10 a time or two. Pit just a called it a non play and let me keep my bet.

  4. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by RS View Post
    It's pretty obvious the variance comes from getting the blackjack, but that doesn't mean it warrants an increase or the same level of bet. You do not want variance.
    I am not sure if this comment was directed at my post but I think some might not understand what I meant by swings and are associating it with variance. Variance is a long run term. Swings is a short run term (I think I got the is or are right Don as swings are a collective noun in this sentence). The way swings are likely to stack up on each other is variance. Two players playing different systems can have one who rarely sees a sustained downturn and another that has downswings that just tend to stack up on each other (or upswings stacking upon upswings). They both may have the same variance but the former would require less of a BR to survive the ebb and flow of their BR.

    So I was not talking about variance when I talked about swings. If you followed some of my threads in the subscription forum on the subject you probably know I figured out what Don challenged me to figure out about controlling swings (in a BJ variant). It was about betting more when variance was caused by increased payoffs and betting less when variance was caused by increasing your original bet by doubles and splits. This is adjusting from the normal optimal bet that is derived from advantage and total variance. For this game variance and covariance vary greatly between the two situations so the optimal bets are already quite different for the same advantage before further adjustment for swing control. This does not exist in BJ as covariance and variance varies little from one extreme to another.

  5. #31


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Variance is a long run term.

    I absolutely disagree, variance is always a constant, short and long term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Swings is a short run term (I think I got the is or are right Don as swings are a collective noun in this sentence). The way swings are likely to stack up on each other is variance.

    Thank you, without question you just proved my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Two players playing different systems can have one who rarely sees a sustained downturn and another that has downswings that just tend to stack up on each other (or upswings stacking upon upswings). They both may have the same variance but the former would require less of a BR to survive the ebb and flow of their BR.
    If you are only talking about regular blackjack, again, I absolutely disagree with this above quote. For you to to be saying that it is the system itself that is going to be the deciding factor for frequency of swings, bankroll requirements to survive, is absolute bullshit. First players who use different systems do not have the same variance, not even the players who use the same exact systems have the same variance. Only someone who is biased in their ideals would not recognize that players do not play alike, or have the same propensity for risk. Generalized comparisons in books show differences in stats, but it is only a guide, as a good player is always adapting to different playing conditions. All players have different expectations and goals, abilities, etc etc.

  6. #32


    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "I am not sure if this comment was directed at my post but I think some might not understand what I meant by swings and are associating it with variance. Variance is a long run term. Swings is a short run term (I think I got the is or are right Don as swings are a collective noun in this sentence). The way swings are likely to stack up on each other is variance."

    I'm sorry, but you're just making up definitions that have nothing to do with mathematics. You don't just ring a bell after, say, 142 hands and say, "Well, that's enough for swings; now we're into variance!" A single hand of blackjack has VARIANCE. Depending on rules, it is about 1.32 squared units. You can calculate the variance for one hand, 100 hands, or 100 million hands. Variance is variance. You're entitled to think about it any way you please, but please don't make up definitions, and don't advocate that "swings" are different from "variance." It's all the same thing.

    Don

  7. #33
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Bosox posted an interesting article by Bigplayer the other day. If they read the forum and believe what they read, they would have to be scared shitless.

    There are those "3" words again. Long Run and Variance.

    Sonny posted an interesting piece regarding the mathmatical logic for long run. Just say it. Instead of keep saying "long run."

    Variance. Of course, the cards are going to come out in various ways. It works both ways. It's not a matter of existance. It's a matter of experience. The more you have the less it effects your decision making process for "both" sides. Entitlement is the bigger picture. Stop thinking so much and just play. The count, your bet, your next move, and let the game come to you.

  8. #34


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Moses, someone helpful hacked your account

  9. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    0 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    First players who use different systems do not have the same variance, not even the players who use the same exact systems have the same variance.
    We often have reading comprehension problems with people that read posts just to diary arguments. I never said they would have the same variance. I said they could (can and may) have the same variance. If you are really just going to read my posts with the sole intention of attacking them, please try to read them the way they are written.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I'm sorry, but you're just making up definitions that have nothing to do with mathematics. You don't just ring a bell after, say, 142 hands and say, "Well, that's enough for swings; now we're into variance!" A single hand of blackjack has VARIANCE. Depending on rules, it is about 1.32 squared units. You can calculate the variance for one hand, 100 hands, or 100 million hands. Variance is variance. You're entitled to think about it any way you please, but please don't make up definitions, and don't advocate that "swings" are different from "variance." It's all the same thing.
    I guess I can't talk about things I am able to do since can't use terms that apply to the short term in the way I am trying to use them. Sorry to this that might benefit from a smoother ride to the long run. The variance doesn't change much. The swings do. But there is no terminology I am allowed to use to differentiate between them. I explain I will use variance as a long term term and swings as a short term term but catch shit for trying to make terms that would explain something that has never been looked into and publicized. Either I am the only one that can do it or the others are smart enough not to try to share it. I have learned that sharing advancements is a bad thing on so many levels. I will try to be smarter in the future. Lesson learned again. Hopefully I will stop trying to be so helpful to others this time.

  10. #36


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Lack of understanding is not an advancement in thinking.

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by umbrellaman View Post
    Hey Meistro, shoot me an e-mail: [email protected]

    Thanks.

    I sent you an e-mail umbrella man.

  12. #38


    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    We often have reading comprehension problems with people that read posts just to diary arguments. I never said they would have the same variance. I said they could (can and may) have the same variance. If you are really just going to read my posts with the sole intention of attacking them, please try to read them the way they are written.
    I guess I can't talk about things I am able to do since can't use terms that apply to the short term in the way I am trying to use them. Sorry to this that might benefit from a smoother ride to the long run. The variance doesn't change much. The swings do. But there is no terminology I am allowed to use to differentiate between them. I explain I will use variance as a long term term and swings as a short term term but catch shit for trying to make terms that would explain something that has never been looked into and publicized. Either I am the only one that can do it or the others are smart enough not to try to share it. I have learned that sharing advancements is a bad thing on so many levels. I will try to be smarter in the future. Lesson learned again. Hopefully I will stop trying to be so helpful to others this time.
    The best defense is a good offense! The above is gibberish. "Swings" are variance, whether you like it or not. You don't get to change mathematical concepts just because it suits your fancy. And for God's sake, PLEASE stop telling us about your unique way of playing the game -- which isn't blackjack, by the way. It's getting terribly old, and no one believes it anyway.

    Don

  13. #39


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Banker View Post
    Lack of understanding is not an advancement in thinking.
    It's amazing how much information can be conveyed in a single, carefully constructed sentence!

    Don

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What would you do in this situation?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-26-2016, 05:59 PM
  2. Do you pay insurance in this situation?
    By 20 to 1 Spread in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09-01-2016, 11:56 AM
  3. What to do in this extreme situation?
    By BJGenius007 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 05-11-2016, 05:40 AM
  4. What to do in this situation?
    By BJprive in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 11:46 AM

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.