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

[hypercube]

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.

really good post three thanks

[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.