See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 42

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

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Big deal over nothing
    I do it all the time
    I will be up a substantial amount of money and going home in a day or two,
    So I scale my bet down huge for the remaining time in town
    Everything else stays the same - splits - doubles - ect
    If I played say 40 weeks a year I would not recommend that style

    I remember once flying into town and leaving after 10 min - There were other reasons of course. but I got lucky, very lucky and was pleased with the win amount so who cared.
    Yes the count had evaporated lol

  2. #15
    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 BoSox View Post
    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.

  3. #16


    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.
    Seek out casino promotions like match plays, reward credits, promotional chips and rebates on losses.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Wonging.

  5. #18


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Three, I will try to answer your post differently.

    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.
    Wrong.

    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.
    Wrong.

    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.
    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.
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-30-2018 at 03:53 AM.

  6. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Bosox. You agree with the points I made but disagree with them at the same time. Do you really want me to do a long explanation of what you know to be true to begin with? I will try to say the exact same statements in minimal amount of words.

    When doubling for the full amount, which we always do when we double unless we are stupid, you double your amount at risk but when risk aversion is applied that doubling of risk doesn't happen. So you cut your risk in half over the EV maximizing play because you don't double.

    When you surrender you also cut your money risked to losing in half and lose the hand. The difference is variance is made to be 0 for the hand when surrendering, instead of about half as it is when you don't double versus doubling (the EV maximizing play is to double but you use risk aversion as a strategy causing you not to double). Half the bet will have ABOUT half the variance for the hand if the hand has yet to be resolved. Half the bet has 0 variance if the hand is resolved by the decision regardless of the dealers final total. You see when you surrender you cut your bet in half and lose the hand and when you double you should always double for the full amount which doubles your bet. The only accepting are in tournaments where you would use an entirely different strategy than you would when playing against the other players rather than the dealer. Perhaps you are in the habit of doubling for less. AP's don't do that because if it is correct to sell your ability to take another card for increasing your bet by doubling then you should put as much out as they allow.

    Risk aversion can apply to many things. It can refer to insurance, doubling, splitting, heat (why do so many APs refuse to split T,T even though it is one of the most valuable index plays), surrender, etc. Risk aversion in its purest sense raises SCORE because the decrease in EV is offset by the decrease in variance. This reduction in risk can allow you to bet more at the same RoR if you choose to use it that way or you can take that gain just as a reduction in variance. CE is the main thing affected by RA plays. Once risk aversion prime focus is increasing CE, as the OP asked about whether he realizes it or not, the classic ideas on risk aversion no longer apply. The prime focus of classic risk aversion is increasing SCORE by managing risk and EV at the same time. Just substitute CE for SCORE in the latter.

    A prime example is RA insurance where both heat aversion and maximizing CE come into play. You don't insure crap hands until the index is exceeded enough to make the heat potential worth the EV. And you insure strong hands before the index to maximize the CE for the matchup. Unlike doubling it is often a good idea to insure for less in certain situations to regulate heat and potential swings. Moderating swings is what CE measures and is what the OP is looking for. My answers are speaking to the OPs question about giving up some EV to have a more steady and predictable BR growth (otherwise known as maximizing CE), as every answer in a thread ideally should do. When doing that often the EV maximizing mentality must be set aside for more advanced thoughts that are not as intuitive. While you may only care about EV, playing the strongest game possible must balance EV with risk. SCORE and CE are two very important ways to look at that balance.

    So much for being brief. Sorry guys, but the arguers make longer posts necessary as they just try to pull a sentence out of context, or even a phrase out of context and then argue about that out of context statement. The context of every statement in this thread should be about CE, growing a bankroll at the most steady rate. I am sure Bosox will pull some statements made and use them without their context, as he has been doing.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [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?
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-30-2018 at 11:39 AM.

  8. #21


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Fman translation please. Bosox "three, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Three "Bosox, kiss my a, a, a...."

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by tater View Post
    Fman translation please. Bosox "three, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Three "Bosox, kiss my a, a, a...."
    Another multi handled one.

  10. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by BoSox View Post
    "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.

  11. #24


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Another multi handled one.
    LMAO

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    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.

  12. #25
    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 kelg21 View Post
    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.

  13. #26


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by BoSox; 04-30-2018 at 04:00 PM.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Indices and their importance to your winning/variance
    By lij45o6 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.