See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 27

Thread: Illustrious 18

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21frogman View Post
    Which begs the question, "Why do you use risk averse indices?"
    Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.

    Don

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [quote=Freightman;273943]Trust that clarifies.[/quote

    It does. You use them to decrease the risk of being labeled an AP and thus increase longevity. (In other words, a risk being averted that is not in the definition of "risk averse".)Thanks.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.
    Don, I did reread pp. 375-377 and I saw and understood the obvious benefits with virtually no risk. I asked my question in order to elicit Freightman's reason for using them.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices?
    If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    [QUOTE=21frogman;273945]
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Trust that clarifies.[/quote

    It does. You use them to decrease the risk of being labeled an AP and thus increase longevity. (In other words, a risk being averted that is not in the definition of "risk averse".)Thanks.
    Nicely phrased.
    I should add that the 8v6 double at plus 3 or more has some decent coin on the felt. The gain at plus 3 or more is simply too much to ignore, thus, the decision to double is made in a nano second, the act takes over requiring a second or 2 to put the money out.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.
    True, but we are telling marginal bankrolls that by using risk averse indices, that they can reduce variance and increase their max bet.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Let me turn it around: Why would you NOT use risk-averse indices? You need to study carefully BJA3, pp. 375-377, to understand that using them can't possibly do you any harm.
    Don, I did reread pp. 375-377 and I see and understand the obvious benefits with virtually no risk. I asked my question in order to elicit Freightman's reason for using them.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    If your BR is sufficiently high for the level you're playing, and the variance doesn't matter to you, EV is lower using risk averse indices.
    That simply isn't true and is the reason I urged to reread pp. 375-377. It makes no difference what your bankroll is. By using r-a indices, the lowering of the variance immediately permits you to increase the size of your optimal bet, thereby allowing ultimate e.v. not to suffer.

    There is NO DOWNSIDE to using r-a indices, and people who advocate otherwise are laboring under a misunderstanding of the concept.

    Don

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    That simply isn't true and is the reason I urged to reread pp. 375-377. It makes no difference what your bankroll is. By using r-a indices, the lowering of the variance immediately permits you to increase the size of your optimal bet, thereby allowing ultimate e.v. not to suffer.

    There is NO DOWNSIDE to using r-a indices, and people who advocate otherwise are laboring under a misunderstanding of the concept.
    Just reread those pages. Guess I had the same misconception you did twenty years prior to your writing.

    Sooo, why aren't those indices adjusted up to the RA indices and simply called the indices?

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    Sooo, why aren't those indices adjusted up to the RA indices and simply called the indices?
    The concept doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you use r-a indices, you also have to make adjustments to optimal bets, so that the whole approach is internally consistent. The alternative, as you can see from the article, differs very little from using e.v-maximizing indices, which then require somewhat smaller wagers.

    The bottom line, also stated in the article, is that the former approach is slightly better than the latter. Much ado about nothing? Maybe.

    Don

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Don, I understand what you’re saying and I use the RA indices from BJA3 for exactly the reasons stated here. The way I explain it is that you’re always looking to trade risk for EV; the RA indices show when the trade off becomes worth it.

    I think, though, that there is a time when you’re better off using EV maximizing indices: when something other than your BR and/or desired ROR is limiting your maximum bets. Maybe your optimal bet is higher than table max, or store tolerance, or would create a wider spread than you want, or whatever. In that case, wouldn’t you be better off grabbing the extra EV, since your risk level is already lower than optimal?

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by refinery View Post
    No problem. I'm sure you already knew the 80/20 rule. Now you have a fancy pants way of talking about it.
    Could you explain the 80/20 rule?

  13. #26

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Illustrious 18 / Fab 4 for H17?
    By Optimus Prime in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-10-2018, 09:57 PM
  2. Illustrious 18
    By moses in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-29-2016, 09:49 AM
  3. Illustrious 18 & Fab 4
    By RS in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 02:16 PM
  4. MJ: Illustrious 18
    By MJ in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 07:21 PM

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.