DD on 5 or 6 vs. 7, using HiLo.

[BigJer]

Everyone,

I have different deviation indices for the above. Some are small differences however, in one chart there are a little bit bigger differences. In BC: EXHIBIT CAA, in deviations for 7 vs. 5,6 are 10, 9/10 - the ten is for S17. Ferguson's is about the same. However in CVBJ the deviations are TC9 vs 5 and TC8 vs. 6. Sure it's not much but what say you?

[DSchles]

Everyone,

I have different deviation indices for the above. Some are small differences however, in one chart there are a little bit bigger differences. In BC: EXHIBIT CAA, in deviations for 7 vs. 5,6 are 10, 9/10 - the ten is for S17. Ferguson's is about the same. However in CVBJ the deviations are TC9 vs 5 and TC8 vs. 6. Sure it's not much but what say you?

For the four-deck game, Wong is 9 and 9 for S17 and 9 and 8 for H17, the same as Norm. I'd go with that.

Don

[BigJer]

Thanks Don.

Oh, as long as you're here, , you had mentioned something - in BJA 3rd - about cover play and uneven bets. One could actually, say a ten unit bet, have one stack of 11 units and the other stack has 9 units? I understand that the variance increases as the square of something or other, however, with that small of an uneven spread - of 11 and 9 - would it be worth the making that cover play? (You or Norm can mention if you want a separate thread on this.)

[DSchles]

Thanks Don.

Oh, as long as you're here, , you had mentioned something - in BJA 3rd - about cover play and uneven bets. One could actually, say a ten unit bet, have one stack of 11 units and the other stack has 9 units? I understand that the variance increases as the square of something or other, however, with that small of an uneven spread - of 11 and 9 - would it be worth the making that cover play? (You or Norm can mention if you want a separate thread on this.)

I think the point is that, if the deviation in bets is small enough to have little or no effect on overall variance, it's unlikely that it will have much cover value either. If you bet two completely different amounts, that might make you look less robotic and "mechanical," but it will then definitely increase variance somewhat.

Don

[Freightman]

....... but it will then definitely increase variance somewhat.

Don

Don, just as a matter of curiosity - would this be the same principle of playing different min games with different dollar ramps - creating short term variance havoc, eventually correcting itself over a period of time.

[DSchles]

Don, just as a matter of curiosity - would this be the same principle of playing different min games with different dollar ramps - creating short term variance havoc, eventually correcting itself over a period of time.

Well, I was specifically addressing the notion of betting a total of, say, 2x dollars with x dollars on each of two hands. That's the smallest variance you can get for that total bet; i.e., by betting equal amounts of x on each of the two hands. If you now vary the wagers by making one bigger by, say, y dollars, while you decrease the other by the same amount, of necessity, you increase the total variance for the two hands. In the limit, you'd bet all 2x on a single hand, and that would be the largest variance possible for betting that much total money.

Don