See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Any Acceptable Way to Reduce Variance in Blackjack and Still Play a Winning Game

  1. #1


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Any Acceptable Way to Reduce Variance in Blackjack and Still Play a Winning Game

    Okay, I will admit it. I don't like to lose. I'm willing to trade off some expected value for less variance. Is this possible in the long run or is it only possible in the short run.

    I just checked my stats going back to 1990 and for any given year I have always won more sessions than I lost. The least amount of sessions won in any year was 52%. The most sessions won in a year is 100% which is this year, but not that many sessions have been played yet this year. My long term average of sessions won is just 64%. I believe I read somewhere it should be 62%. I can't remember where I read this maybe in Blackjack Attack.

    Anyway, I have done things at least in the short run to lock up a win. I will admit it I don't play like a computer. Here is an example, I recently was on an extended blackjack trip. I had wins on both the first and second day of my trip at my final destination. The wins were not impressive, but they were still wins none the less. I didn't want to give it all back on the last day of the trip so decided to play $10 min tables instead of $25 min which I mostly played on the prior two days. I can think of other things to reduce variance and at times have done them such as using a weaker spread.

    Anyway, I know these things work in the short run. I don't know about the long run. What usually happens after a winning streak, is I get a whopping loss. I'm due for that whopping loss now.
    Last edited by Midwest Player; 04-29-2018 at 12:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,386


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Use RA indices for doubling and surrender. That will lower variance and n0. Prime candidates for risk aversion are plays that are poorly correlated to your count, and plays that don't have much gain at the index. Now surrender is a different animal when considering RA. With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play. For surrenders you reduce bet by the same ratio, one half, but you cut variance by an infinite amount to 0 for the play. This is much more powerful than reducing your bet risked by half and reducing variance by about 50% for the play.

  3. #3


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Use RA indices for doubling and surrender. That will lower variance and n0. Prime candidates for risk aversion are plays that are poorly correlated to your count, and plays that don't have much gain at the index. Now surrender is a different animal when considering RA. With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play. For surrenders you reduce bet by the same ratio, one half, but you cut variance by an infinite amount to 0 for the play. This is much more powerful than reducing your bet risked by half and reducing variance by about 50% for the play.
    Does playing 2 hAnds reducevariance?

  4. #4


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    Anyway, I have done things at least in the short run to lock up a win. I will admit it I don't play like a computer. Here is an example, I recently was on an extended blackjack trip. I had wins on both the first and second day of my trip at my final destination. The wins were not impressive, but they were still wins none the less. I didn't want to give it all back on the last day of the trip so decided to play $10 min tables instead of $25 min which I mostly played on the prior two days. I can think of other things to reduce variance and at times have done them such as using a weaker spread.

    Anyway, I know these things work in the short run. I don't know about the long run. What usually happens after a winning streak, is I get a whopping loss. I'm due for that whopping loss now.
    MWP, I know that I joke around with you on your insistence of still shoveling snow with your yooper scooper, but this time you need to be tarred and feathered. Sorry, I do not like your post. All those years of you being a member on Wong's pay site, and you make a post like this is unbelievable. Apparently, you are getting soft in your old age. Just quit the game, and play with your grandchildren.

  5. #5


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Midwest Player View Post
    Okay, I will admit it. I don't like to lose. I'm willing to trade off some expected value for less variance. Is this possible in the long run or is it only possible in the short run.

    I didn't want to give it all back on the last day of the trip so decided to play $10 min tables instead of $25 min which I mostly played on the prior two days. I can think of other things to reduce variance and at times have done them such as using a weaker spread.
    First paragraph
    Short answer - yes, but I don't want to elaborate.

    Second paragraph
    You're thinking backwards. You're actually going to go through a variance roller coaster, which will eventually come together. Further, using a weaker spread is going to eat into your hourly in a big way. You need the spread to overcome the cost of waiting bets. I like you, I think you're a good guy, but you're not doing yourself any favours thinking this way.

  6. #6
    Member lessj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Texas / Oklahoma
    Posts
    37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    You're thinking backwards. You're actually going to go through a variance roller coaster, which will eventually come together. Further, using a weaker spread is going to eat into your hourly in a big way. You need the spread to overcome the cost of waiting bets. I like you, I think you're a good guy, but you're not doing yourself any favours thinking this way.
    Thinking the same thing. We can’t afford to buy into Gambler’s fallacy, it will only cost us!

  7. #7


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    MWP -

    You've played enough BJ to understand that severe variance is part of playing a winning game; there's no easy way. Successful APs must steel themselves to this reality. But if it's any help, I'll leave you with the words of my favorite country artist -

    You never know
    What’s waiting just up the road
    Sooner or later that sun’s gonna shine
    Luck will turn on a dime
    So when the good times roll let ‘em roll
    But when they don’t
    Let it go

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Use RA indices for doubling and surrender. That will lower variance and n0. Prime candidates for risk aversion are plays that are poorly correlated to your count, and plays that don't have much gain at the index.
    I agree with you so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Now surrender is a different animal when considering RA. With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play.
    Whenever you double you cannot cut the amount of money at risk, the amount of money at risk will increase by the amount of the double.

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    For surrenders you reduce bet by the same ratio, one half, but you cut variance by an infinite amount to 0 for the play.
    Surrender, never reduces a bet, as there is no more bet.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    This is much more powerful than reducing your bet risked by half and reducing variance by about 50% for the play.
    The only way you can do this "reducing your bet risked by half " is by cheating by palming chips in an ongoing hand.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,386


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Whenever you double you cannot cut the amount of money at risk, the amount of money at risk will increase by the amount of the double.
    See this is what happens when I try to keep posts short. Criticisms like this is why I like to write longer posts that even the slower people should be able to follow.

    The lead in sentences was a lead in to points about each type of RA plays that would directly follow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Use RA indices for doubling and surrender. That will lower variance and n0. Prime candidates for risk aversion are plays that are poorly correlated to your count, and plays that don't have much gain at the index.
    After reading the topic sentence for the paragraph you know all that follows is about RA doubling and RA surrender.
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play.
    The sentence quoted above deals with RA doubling. Even with the sentence saying that it is with the use of risk aversion when doubling that the amount risked is cut in half etc, I need to write a full paragraph for some people to comprehend a simple sentence. When I don't make it a long post I get comments to the above sentence that indicate the reader had no clue the sentence was talking about RA play rather than doubling and not doubling. Just look at the part written in bold in the quote. I still get a comment like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Whenever you double you cannot cut the amount of money at risk, the amount of money at risk will increase by the amount of the double.
    Compare the bold in that quote With this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion
    Apparently not everyone knows what risk aversion is when you double. They act like doubling is the same as the RA adjustment where you don't double when it is the EV maximizing play when you considering doubling.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    Surrender, never reduces a bet, as there is no more bet.
    If you have no bet out there is nothing to surrender.

    You just read my post looking for things to argue about, rather than trying to understand it. Both concepts are quite easy to understand but they both went over your head because you were only trying to find things to argue about. Both plays are not EV maximizing plays but reduce variance. The reduction in variance reduces swings and more importantly reduces n0 and increases SCORE (which are the same thing). Basically you trade a little EV for more certain BR growth.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Indices and their importance to your winning/variance
    By dogman_1234 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 10-08-2016, 07:36 PM
  2. lelo: EV and variance of game?
    By lelo in forum Computing for Counters
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 01:08 PM
  3. MJ: Methods to Reduce Variance (long)
    By MJ in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 08:17 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.