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

[Freightman]

Yes, you can reduce your variance and still play a winning game. If you looking to reduce the amount of swings the in terms of dollars amount, then the answer is easy, just reduce your bets. Better yet, reduce your minimum bet. If you looking to reduce variance relative to EV, play games that offer surrender. Playing 2 hands of 50 instead or one hand of 100 will also reduce variance. If your more interested in trip results, try to consolidated trips to make each trip a lot longer. Another alternative, but likely not for your bankroll, is to play higher minimum with a tight spread.

To reduce variance, you really need to reduce EV. So, just bet less but at the end of the year, you will have much less too.

The key
Logical is to increase win %
Not so logical is to reduce average win, but reduce average loss by a greater percentage. Inference is firstly, drop your average loss to an amount not exceeding average win, secondly, to further reduce average loss to a levels below your average win.

The compounding effect on hourly is significant.

[nycpro]

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

[seriousplayer]

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.

[Bushie]

Wonging.

[Three]

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.

[BoSox]

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.

Three, good re-clarification for the newer players. Learning Risk Aversion plays comes near the end of the training process and we cannot assume that new members can read between the lines of established players. Intentional or not, "debatable" you have a history of a communication problem with this board, and I do not need to spell it out for you again. Subsequently, you of all people should make yourself very clear.

[Freightman]

Three, good re-clarification for the newer players. Learning Risk Aversion plays comes near the end of the training process and we cannot assume that new members can read between the lines of established players. Intentional or not, "debatable" you have a history of a communication problem with this board, and I do not need to spell it out for you again. Subsequently, you of all people should make yourself very clear.

Good point. I knew all of the indexes before I knew what risk aversion was. If there Are any points to be gleaned here, it is that index numbers are strike points, at which we can maximize EV. Maximizing EV requires strong bankrolls, almost always beyond the safety margin for newer players. Risk aversion should be taught early.

[tater]

Fman translation please. Bosox "three, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Three "Bosox, kiss my a, a, a...."

[Freightman]

Fman translation please. Bosox "three, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Three "Bosox, kiss my a, a, a...."

Another multi handled one.

[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.

[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.

[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.