Don/other experts, How to find covariance of a game ?

[bjarg]

What I can see here is that aceside tries to avoid the problem of multiple hands associated with a dealer Blackjack. The strategy could be applicable to Ace sequencing... Play only one hand and share the Ace with the dealer (on average) instead of playing a "buffer hand" and lose both to a dealer BJ.

But that logic would be innacurate.
Im far from being an expert in sequencing, but Ive done my fair share of it on simple shuffles and casinos with sloppy procedures where dealers showed cards and what you really want to do in a round with an ace is to bet big in the box where you have the ace tracked, but also bet minimum (or very small) in all the other boxes.
That way if you miss the ace you reduce the chances of it going to the dealer at a very little cost which far outweights the risk of losing that max bet against a dealers ace.
Of course doing this solo raises huge red flags, for obvious reasons.
Most experts Ive seen play serious sequencing strategies had team members to play those minimum bets when required.

[Gramazeka]

First time I've ever heard that. I see no basis at all for that strategy.

Don

Snyder was talking about this. As far as I remember, in his book « Cookbook».

[aceside]

And while variance obviously increases with optimal bets on multiple simultaneous hands, so does e.v., by the same percentage, leaving risk of ruin the same.

Don

I agree that variance increases a lot with multiple simultaneous bets, but disagree that the ev does so. That is faulted math. The only situation for playing three or more multiple hands is when the cut card is about to come out but the count is still skyrocket high, but this means the player has been losing.

[DSchles]

I agree that variance increases a lot with multiple simultaneous bets, but disagree that the ev does so. That is faulted math. The only situation for playing three or more multiple hands is when the cut card is about to come out but the count is still skyrocket high, but this means the player has been losing.

One of these days, you will read BJA3, especially, in this case, pages 24-26, and then I won't have to read, for probably the first time in the past 30 years, about my "faulted math."

I will say that, for someone who posts something incorrect in virtually every thread that you participate in, you aren't shy. But, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Don

[aceside]

One of these days, you will read BJA3, especially, in this case, pages 24-26, and then I won't have to read, for probably the first time in the past 30 years, about my "faulted math."

I will say that, for someone who posts something incorrect in virtually every thread that you participate in, you aren't shy. But, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Don

I will definitely read your BJA3, but I must get the money out of blackjack. That is why I am not shy at all.

[21forme]

I will say that, for someone who posts something incorrect in virtually every thread that you participate in, you aren't shy. But, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

+ infinity

[aceside]

+ infinity

Education is a rocky path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.
--Mark Twain

[Gronbog]

I really donot know how to calculate the covariance of two simultaneous hands.

Then you don't know what covariance is. Covariance by definition requires at least two simultaneous hands.

[aceside]

Then you don't know what covariance is. Covariance by definition requires at least two simultaneous hands.

I guess you often do not need two specific hands to find the covariance. Consider a six-deck shoe with the strip rules, and you just sit at the table to play two hand simultaneously. Your girlfriend asks you, what is the covariance of the two hand? Wong says 0.482456.

[aceside]

That's top of the deck, ignores counts, ignores indices, ignores cut card, ignores changing number of hands.

I have been thinking about the calculation of the covariance analytically. Actually we can include all these factors you mentioned, all by changing the card composition of the original deck. For example, we use a man made shoe with extra ten valued cards to do the same calculation of covariance.

[bjarg]

First time I've ever heard that. I see no basis at all for that strategy.

Don

Same here. First time.

Snyder was talking about this. As far as I remember, in his book « Cookbook».

Dont remember reading about that in the Cookbook my friend. It's been a while since I last read it. I will take a look at it to see if I find that.

[G Man]

If you have the Cookbook 2003 Edition, it's at bottom of page 75 and top of page 76

[bjarg]

If you have the Cookbook 2003 Edition, it's at bottom of page 75 and top of page 76

Thanks!