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

[Freightman]

3 made reference to my preferences, Blackjack that is. To clarify - The issue of EV maximizing, Risk Averse doubles and splits, variance and bankroll growth - Freightman's perspective. I combine both approaches.

All basic hard doubles, more scrutiny on some soft doubles (a2 or 3 v 4 ), all as long as index is met. EV maximizing. I will occasionally deviate, but the remaining composition will be screwed up, if I do.

I18 doubles, I use risk averse. Not really concerned about RA, more concerned about longevity and frequency of occurrence. Example 8 v 5 or 6 are I18 doubles respectively at True 3 and 1. Long term gain right at index is minimal, and is a frequent enough occurrence to be noted by the pit. The gain to be had at True 5 and 3 respectively, is simply to much to ignore. I like 8v6 at true 3, which has a good success rate. Doubling 8 v 5 is less frequent for me, since it requires, on an RA basis, a higher true count. I was lucky enough to have one of these doubles on my last trip. You can usually bet, that at true 5, I had somewhat more than chump change out there. Note the term - usually - I sometimes have my "Waiting big bet" out there, which is really a different issue.

I excercise greater caution on some splits. Example 99 v 7 index True 3. I seem to have a look no term history if getting burned (though snagged 2 aces once). For my own peace of mind, I will wait till True 5, preferably higher, to make this so,it is definitely an RA approach. I also excercise caution on 33 v2, refusing to split in negatives, as well as other personal preferences.

Insurance is taken on all good hands at index, or certain hands slightly below index, such as 20, occasionally 19. Right at index, I may decline or insure for less at crappy hands. This is a concept learned here regarding risk averse insurance. The higher the true count, regardless of hand quality, insurance is taken. People should look at insurance as an important side bet, which is break even at true 3 (hi lo) or 3.4 at halves 6 deck.

I surrender or hit 2 card 15 or 16 (ES10), using no cover, decision based on true count. My one exception here is hitting one unit 14's v 10. Very low cost.

If you play strictly EV maximizing, you need a strong bankroll, as there will be good bouts of variance. Risk averse is better for the more shoe string type bankroll. Using Risk averse doubles and splits properly, will actually make you more money. The theory here is that by lowering variance, you can increase your max bet. The higher true count levels required for risk averse capture an excellent percentage if the available Expected Value. Enough for now.

[Freightman]

To paraphrase Fman. This is some interesting shit. Wong Halves. Not side counting Aces I assume. So when you say at Index. Do you mean the 3. or 3.4TC? Insuring 19 is my problem child. So I lump it in the same category as 11 instead of 20. Logic being, if the 10 isn't in the hole, it must be next.

Is there a line in the sand you draw on TC to insure any crap hand?

Allowances made for ace density. True 3.0 for the majority playing hi lo, 3.4 for me. Boy, you sure remind me of Ustonzen, and that other dipshit DBS6582.

[Dbs6582]

Allowances made for ace density. True 3.0 for the majority playing hi lo, 3.4 for me. Boy, you sure remind me of Ustonzen, and that other dipshit DBS6582.

Freightman, I guess it's back to your name calling ways. How did I get dragged into this quagmire? Someday I hope you'll learn to grow up, and debate an issue like a mature adult. I've delt with people like you in the past so I'm not holding my breath this will happen anytime soon.

And please don't go back to your wife for another counseling session. Leave her out of this. This isn't that important.

[Three]

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.

You keep looking at the beginning and end of the sentence and leaving out the middle. To comment on what a sentence says you have to consider the entire sentence and its context. The middle of the sentence says "with risk aversion". When you apply risk aversion when doubling you aren't doubling a hand you otherwise would hence cutting your EV maximizing bet in half. The sentence is fine and accurate but your point about it being confusing to those that are unfamiliar with the concept is valid. I chose my words poorly, again.

Of course, cutting 50% of the doubling chances cuts down on variance.

I never said cutting 50% of your doubling opportunities. I said betting half as much approximately cuts variance about in half for that hand. Although some RA plays cut the doubling opportunities by a lot more than 50%. The big one is 10vT. The index moves by many TCs when using the RA index rather than the EV maximizing index, as you can see in Don's table 13.13 on page 378 of BJA3. The amount the index for 10vT moves when applying risk aversion depends on your count and betting style compared to your BR.

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.

That is why the middle of the sentence says "with risk aversion", it is to define what doubling opportunities the sentence is talking about. With the use of risk aversion you don't double a hand you would have without RA and therefore cut the bet you would have made in half. The sentence stated with risk aversion and was in a paragraph about some of the uses of risk aversion. I thought it was clear but thanks for clearing it up for those that may not have followed what I was trying to say.

[Freightman]

The big one is 10vT. The index moves by many TCs when using the RA index rather than the EV maximizing index, as you can see in Don's table 13.13 on page 378 of BJA3. The amount the index for 10vT moves when applying risk aversion depends on your count and betting style compared to your BR.

A very profitable, yet dangerous double. 10 v 10 is very ace sensitive. I would not double at strike point true 4, unless the deck was ace rich. Risk averse is true 7. My last 10 v 10 double (+8) snatched me a stiff, which did not bode well. Fortunately, dealer scored Blackjack, ergo obo. Another occasion, scored the ace, dealer scoring a back door blackjack. Shit happens.

The reward is significant, though tight bankrolls may want to bypass, or at least use risk averse.

[Three]

If you play strictly EV maximizing, you need a strong bankroll, as there will be good bouts of variance. Risk averse is better for the more shoe string type bankroll. Using Risk averse doubles and splits properly, will actually make you more money. The theory here is that by lowering variance, you can increase your max bet. The higher true count levels required for risk averse capture an excellent percentage if the available Expected Value. Enough for now.

This was my point. I have a strong BR like you do and I approach play much the same way. It eases a lot of the heat and smooths the ride while getting most of the EV for the index plays. No cost to your hourly if it lets you raise your bets without increasing RoR. Just lowering RoR is nice too. I am not worrying about busting out when I say that. My RoR is essentially 0. But a lower RoR manifests itself in more certain BR growth most of the time.

I can't believe I am the only one that rated this great post helpful. Maybe by tomorrow there will be a lot of helpfuls.

[kelg21]

A very profitable, yet dangerous double. 10 v 10 is very ace sensitive. I would not double at strike point true 4, unless the deck was ace rich. Risk averse is true 7. My last 10 v 10 double (+8) snatched me a stiff, which did not bode well. Fortunately, dealer scored Blackjack, ergo obo. Another occasion, scored the ace, dealer scoring a back door blackjack. Shit happens.

The reward is significant, though tight bankrolls may want to bypass, or at least use risk averse.

Excellent post. Worth an H. Damn...true 7?
Makes it very rare. No?

[Freightman]

Excellent post. Worth an H. Damn...true 7?
Makes it very rare. No?

Not an everyday occurrence, but it's not super rare either. You need cajones to make this play, as you should have your max, if super max bet out there.

I recall a steamer bet I made once, with a couple of ploppies at the table. This was probably 5 years ago. Had a big bet out, let's say about $300 at that time with 10 v 10. Didn't want to go into my pocket for the extra I needed for the full double, so put the balance if my chips out - give or take 200-250, heard a couple if comments about having balls, scored the ace, beating dealer 20. Yes, the count was juicy.

[tater]

Not an everyday occurrence, but it's not super rare either. You need cajones to make this play, as you should have your max, if super max bet out there.

I recall a steamer bet I made once, with a couple of ploppies at the table. This was probably 5 years ago. Had a big bet out, let's say about $300 at that time with 10 v 10. Didn't want to go into my pocket for the extra I needed for the full double, so put the balance if my chips out - give or take 200-250, heard a couple if comments about having balls, scored the ace, beating dealer 20. Yes, the count was juicy.

Having balls nothin. That's like packing a cucumber in your sweat pants.

[Freightman]

LMAO. I don't know whether to thank you or slug you. I'm kidding. 3.4 is what I figured. Thanks. That helps.

So if you go by feel, is the sensation subtle or more like a mouse running up your leg or a pigeon flying out your shorts?

Fast and loose, just like a Fast Eddie Felsen

https://youtu.be/bpc3TKhS6MU

If you're relaxed, wearing boxer shorts, and your balls are slapping the side of your thighs, like soft kid leather, go for the gusto. If you're nervous and uptight, and your testicles have shrunk, you've lost your edge, and caution is warranted.

I trust that answers your question..

[Freightman]

Having balls nothin. That's like packing a cucumber in your sweat pants.

Here's a tip for you. If you want to impress the ladies with that cucumber in your sweat pants, make sure the cucumber is in front.

[ferenc11]

Hahahahahaha

[hypercube]

if going to $10 from $25 min allows you to use a bigger spread, say 1-12 versus 1-8, it will indeed reduce variance and do exactly what you want. How much exactly you can sim based on your game.