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

[Midwest Player]

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.

[Three]

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.

[BoSox]

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.

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.

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.

[Three]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

[BoSox]

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.

I agree with this above quote, as I understood the concept for many years.

[Three]

I agree with this above quote, as I understood the concept for many years.

I knew you just read my post looking for things to argue about. If you understood the concept and read it trying to understand it, you would have and wouldn't have made me feel like I should have taken 4 long paragraphs to explain it.

[BoSox]

[quote=Three;248167]Originally Posted by Bo Sox
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."

Originally Posted by Three
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."

First, you refer to lead in sentences, now you are saying "After reading the topic sentence for the paragraph" something else. Are you now referring to only one lead in sentence? If that is the case, which one is it?

[Three]

"After reading the topic sentence for the paragraph" something else. Are you now referring to only one lead in sentence? If that is the case, which one is it?

It is both. The point is the context of the statement didn't require all the extra words. When you read something you don't pull one sentence out and give it an entirely new context to make it mean something other than what the context would have it mean unless you are trolling. The context of the thread and my posts have been about maximizing CE rather than EV. There are two courses of action that result from trolling like this and history on the site prove it. I feel I must go back to lengthy posts to avoid these types of things or I put the troll on ignore. Like Freightman I feel you are a valuable poster. If you don't want me to reluctantly put you on ignore,or go back to lengthy posts then consider the context in which a statement is made, and criticize it from that point of view.

You have posted before that you don't believe in RA insurance or other uses of RA. That is fine. But some of us want more certainty when it comes to BR growth. To us it is worth giving up some EV for more steady BR growth. Just because you choose to ignore this approach doesn't make it wrong. And those that follow this approach don't think your EV maximizing approach is wrong. Everyone just has varying preferences. Freighter has spoken of how well he has been running. I don't think that is just luck. He knows of what I speak. He uses it the way he believes will best work for him. Is the more certain results he is getting wrong? Doing a lot of little things to increase certainty add up to something quite significant.

[kelg21]

Another multi handled one.

LMAO

It is both. The point is the context of the statement didn't require all the extra words. When you read something you don't pull one sentence out and give it an entirely new context to make it mean something other than what the context would have it mean unless you are trolling. .

Your mentor is notorious for this and a precedent was set.

If you don't want me to reluctantly put you on ignore,or go back to lengthy posts then consider the context in which a statement is made, and criticize it from that point of view..

That's a little extreme. Don't you think? Few have complained about the quality of your posts. Many have complained about the length. Here is a thought. Write it out. Then condense it to what really needs to be said.

Freighter has spoken of how well he has been running. I don't think that is just luck. He knows of what I speak. He uses it the way he believes will best work for him. Is the more certain results he is getting wrong? .

Fman is like a blackjack thoroughbred built to run in stakes races.

Doing a lot of little things to increase certainty add up to something quite significant.

Perfect example. An excellent qoute. It could've been lost in your flurry of words.

All human wisdom is summed up in two words; wait and hope. Alexandre Dumas

Pronounced Dumwa. Dumbass.

[Three]

That's a little extreme. Don't you think. Few have complained about the quality of your posts. Many have complained about the length. Here is a thought. Write it out. Then condense it to what really needs to be said.

We have been down this road before. the two ways it play out is I start increasing the length of my posts so the troll has a hard time finding something to take out of context. Or I put the troll on ignore and never see the bait. Freighter was taken off ignore a while back. No regrets there. He needed to be on ignore and after enough time passed he didn't. I have one troll on ignore right now and another on ignore because he is an ungrateful idiot. If someone keeps baiting me or purposely tries to get me pissed all the time I put them on ignore. I wish I had the discipline to not take the bait but history has proven this is what works best for me. I tend to be more reluctant to put a quality poster on ignore but I will if they keep up the trolling.

[BoSox]

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.

[BoSox]

Three, I will try to answer your post differently.

With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play.

Wrong.

For surrenders you reduce bet by the same ratio, one half, but you cut variance by an infinite amount to 0 for the play.

Wrong.

This is much more powerful than reducing your bet risked by half and reducing variance by about 50% for the play.

Well, it appears you have hit the trifecta. If you had previously wrote four long paragraphs in the same fashion, it would not have changed my opinion.

[BoSox]

With doubling you cut your amount risked in half with risk aversion which approximately cuts variance in half for the play.

A player who is using risk aversion index plays and passes on some strike point doubles resulting in the player only playing 50% of the possible double opportunities is in fact, reducing variance. On the 100% of the doubles that the player does make, does not cut any amount of actual money risked by a dime, never mind by half, regardless of the greater edge for the player ALL of the money in the circle is at risk. Of course, cutting 50% of the doubling chances cuts down on variance. Your above quote that I copied can be miss- interpreted, easily especially by newer players which the board is full of. Frankly that was not helping new players without stating that the number of hands played would be cut in half. You instead state something that is impossible. In that one sentence quote, you start with the words "with doubling" and finish with "cuts variance in half for the play" that give the impression you are talking about a single hand played, which you were not.