Hello; I have a question about risk-averse indices. If you calculate the EV and variance of a game using the regular indices, and size your bets appropriately, is not the risk of each index baked into the total, and already accounted for by your bet ramp/ROR? Why would one want to reduce the risk of certain index plays after the fact, when their contribution to the whole is already accounted for?
There is a difference between strike point and risk averse as it pertains to positive true counts. Strike point is essentially a smidgen over break even increasing your profits over the long term by an amount likely not suitable to pick up the lunch tab.
The more that true count exceeds strike point the higher the total % capture of total EV. Indices exercised right at strike point increase variance. Utilizing risk averse indices reduce variance. In theory, risk averse allows the user to increase max bet while maintaining ror. The increase in allowable increase max bet is say, 10%. In practice, the typical player will not raise their max using the forgone increase in EV to reduce variance. Both approaches work.
CVCX can calculate both of these scenarios. All players (excepting perhaps slash burn type players) should exercise at least some measure of risk averse, which by the way does project a certain amount of cover.
You also used the phrase “size your bets appropriately”, which is very predictable and easy to spot by surveillance - so cover is important.
Not quite. More proper to say the more over strike point you are, the safer the wager.So I guess the idea is that for some indices, the risk increase is greater than the EV increase,
Yes - as theory goes. Or, if you have fair spread as it is, don’t increase your bet with the effect being a reduction in variance.and by decreasing the risk, the overall bet can be correspondingly increased.
It depends on the bet size, too. If you have a minimum bet out, you're fine to double 10 v. 10 right at the EV maximizing index. You can go deep into the weeds with this, although you shouldn't if you're not already using full indexes. Because you'll get more bang for your buck with full indexes than getting into the weeds on RA indexes.
In fact, you really shouldn't get into the weeds with this at all. Just pick an approach, and spend your time playing/scouting.
The Cash Cow.
Your comments are confusing as hell. The EV maximizing for 10v10 is hi lo +4. Why on earth would he have a minimum bet out at true +4? You would need a full table with you playing anchor for any shot at this to make any possible sense and I doubt it would happen.Originally Posted by moo321
And what does “deep in the weeds” mean? Does “full indexes” mean strike point? You certainly imply that - and if in fact that is what you mean, then you are wrong. The whole theory of risk averse centres around making more money with less risk by waiting for a higher true count with a higher max bet with less risk - or the corollary - don’t increase your max bet and enjoy the fruits by experiencing reduced variance.
The average player with an average bankroll should NOT use EV maximizing indexes because of the variance rollercoaster. My bankroll is a monster on the stakes I play, and I use a combination of EV maximizing and Risk Averse plays. Now, if anybody wants to buy into that topic of QTC, then some allowance could be extended.
Because you're playing a shoe game with decent pen, 5 decks have been dealt, the true count was zero at the start of the round and an excess of small cards are out on the table, including perhaps the 5-5 or 6-4 you're thinking about doubling.
You can have a small CE gain by using different indexes based on the bet size currently on the felt. But this is asinine and should not be done.
Perhaps. But many professionals spend a lot of time playing well below the maximum risk for their bankroll. Maybe they have a quarter of a million dollar bankroll. And they play some green chip games because they're good, they don't have a lot of heat, and $75/hr. without a lot of stress isn't a bad gig. Those people should be using EV maximizing indexes. And that's why I said everyone should just pick an approach that works for them, stick with it, and not spend time on things like this that don't make money.
You'd make a lot more money either memorizing extra indexes, or scouting and playing than worrying about the details of RA indexes.
The Cash Cow.
I took that into account. In my birthing days, I was playing $5-$100 4 deck full table game either mid table or closer to anchor with a whopping $20 bet. At decision time, as you’ve described, RISK averse True Count justified the 10v10 double. You keep harping on EV maximizing doubles preaching to average counters who have no business making those strike point doubles.Because you're playing a shoe game with decent pen, 5 decks have been dealt, the true count was zero at the start of the round and an excess of small cards are out on the table, including perhaps the 5-5 or 6-4 you're thinking about doubling.
Wrong again. Where was the count to begin with? And if you mean true 5 or 6 in this instance, RISK averse is at +7 for a reason. The standard bankroll needs to pay attention to these “little” issues.You can have a small CE gain by using different indexes based on the bet size currently on the felt. But this is asinine and should not be done.
For the record, I’ve never played full time on the road. I’ve reduced my bloated bj bankroll to reflect that continuing trend. Risk is risk and higher risk with big bankrolls is something most pros (I would think) would avoid. The day of their need for Hail Mary’s has long since passed. Besides, EV maximizing combined with optimal betting is a good recipe for fast back offs.Perhaps. But many professionals spend a lot of time playing well below the maximum risk for their bankroll. Maybe they have a quarter of a million dollar bankroll. And they play some green chip games because they're good,
Top Gun Maverick - Its not the plane - it’s the pilot. Non optimal betting with tight spreads can produce far higher returns. The road are far higher with minimal risk. As I’ve espoused many times - it’s easy, really easy to beat sims.And they play some green chip games because they're good, they don't have a lot of heat, and $75/hr. without a lot of stress isn't a bad gig. Those people should be using EV maximizing indexes.
I know indexes backwards and forwards on my play all games of location, convenience and choice. I play a combo of EV maximizing and Risk Averse of which 10 v 10 is a part of for me. In summary, if I were to go full time on the road, I would reap the benefits of a highly nuanced system. For the most part, back offs for me are cumulative based.You'd make a lot more money either memorizing extra indexes, or scouting and playing than worrying about the details of RA indexes.
Two clearly diametrically opposite viewpoints. I would welcome others to express their viewpoints.
We discuss this play in great detail in HLCCS, pp. 9-10. The bottom line is that this play, if EV-maximizing at +4, doesn't even appear in the Nifty 50, or the top 125 or any list of positive-SCORE contributions. Using it actually decreases SCORE, which was already stated in BJA3, at the bottom of p. 372, and it was the revered MathProf who was explaining.
Bottom line: There's really no justification for anyone betting nearly optimally to ever make this play, while using +7, or in some cases, +6, will, in fact, produce a positive SCORE contribution in the top 25 or so.
Don
That is the reason why I changed the famous C22 (Catch-22) to the R22 (Revisited-22) in my PDF. What was the only change made? Coincidentally, 10vT. In the R22, 10vT was replaced by TTv4.
The most interesting part is that using the index that maximizes the expected value (+4 for Hi-Lo), the SCORE is effectively deteriorated. The same happens in CAC2 and in several other counting systems.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
While this is mathematically sound, these two plays are "traditionally" opposed. Splitting 10s vs 4 in Europe is probably the best play, but in North America, it would raise heat to a danger level. However, doubling 10 vs 10 is seen here and there and doesn't generate so much heat. So, I would say:
- Playing Europe: Split 10s vs 4 at +7 (anyway, you will never double 10 vs 10 in an ENHC game)
- Playing N-America: Double 10 vs 10 at +7 and refrain from the 10s split.
G Man
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks