Lose it all in high count

**Freightman** · 12-01-2017, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jack Jackson

What about "Even Money?"

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).

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 12-01-2017, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jack Jackson

What about "Even Money?"

Yes. Of course.

**BlackJackAgain** · 12-01-2017, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

This surprises me. Can you provide a further cite regarding this assertion; i.e., is this in Exhibit CAA?

Don't have the quote but this is in Exhibit CAA.
It's not a critical issue, will not really hurt your game not knowing about this. Something for you to look into if interested.

**ShipTheCookies** · 12-01-2017, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

This surprises me. Can you provide a further cite regarding this assertion; i.e., is this in Exhibit CAA?

Grosjean has a lot to say about counting and counters in that book. Mostly ripping on them and their "massive edges."

**DSchles** · 12-01-2017, 08:54 PM

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

**BlackJackAgain** · 12-01-2017, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

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.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 12-02-2017, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by DSchles

" ... written by Michael Canjar (MathProf) in Optimal Play,
edited by Ethier and Eadington."

I would enjoy having a link to this definitive article.

Meanwhile, Peter Griffin's "The Theory of Blackjack"

has taught me much of what I know on this topic in

a fine, comprehensive, chapter on multivariate play.

**DSchles** · 12-02-2017, 02:03 PM

Nothing close to Mike's study. Like Fun with Dick and Jane compared to War and Peace. Anyway, unfortunately, this is simply a chapter of a huge book. You probably should own the book. I doubt that it's online, but I'll look for you.

Here's the reference: Canjar, R. Michael "Advanced Insurance Play in 21: Risk Aversion and Composition Dependence", in Ethier, Stewart N., William R. Eadington (editors) Optimal Play: Mathematical Studies of Games and Gambling, Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, Las Vegas, 2007, ISBN 978-0-9796873-0-3

Don

**Jack Jackson** · 12-02-2017, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

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...

**Freightman** · 12-02-2017, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Jack Jackson

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...

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.