Same thing.
Do recall a comment from Don some years back - something to the effect of rejecting insurance at true 2.94, as it was under index, and losing.
I see nothing wrong with both risk averse insurance as well as risk averse even money (both within limitations).
I dont know why, but my style of play, leans more toward "in favor" of "risk averse betting" while playing the hands to Maximum EV..Even Doubling S21 v 7 isnt beyond me..And Even though im not a fan of RA indexes, there are a few i actually do use(Splits and Doubles) when Max Bets are on the line..Taking Even money slighlty below the index on Max Bet is def. one of them..With Min. bets the play of my hands is very aggressive and i use no RA indexes..Keep in mind, im not taken into account any camo plays here...
Last edited by Jack Jackson; 12-02-2017 at 04:38 PM.
http://bjstrat.net/cgi-bin/cdca.cgi
The style of play is yours. It certainly appears to be a slash and burn style of play. My preference is far softer, though still reasonably aggressive.. It keeps me playing over s reasonably broad geographical area of play, except my own locale where my presence is no longer welcome. It does allow me to achieve my goals.
This is a complicated subject on which the definitive article was written by Michael Canjar (MathProf) in Optimal Play, edited by Ethier and Eadington. It isn't possible to summarize all the nuances here, but suffice it to say that what has been written above is a gross simplification of a very involved topic.
Don
You can (and do) say that about many if not most topics.
Real people do not use two decimal places when calculating TC (those that do I'll spot you the extra $2 a year you make as a result). No-one is going to go into a 10,000 word mathematical essay here - most here are looking for related ways to better their game and that means that yes, we usually need to grossly oversimplify matters in order to translate them into simple changes to our game.
Bookmarks