paranoid android: risk averse play for multiple splits

[paranoid android]

I realize this probably has little if any practical value, but consider the following:

I draw two 9s against a 2, the count is right on the index where the correct play is to split, so I do. However, I then draw another 9. My count hasn't changed, so I should split again. However, my guess is the index should be raised a bit (perhaps only by a very small fraction) for risk averse reasons since the split for the current count only raises my EV the tiniest amount and I'm now risking more money.

I'm guessing most index generators either only consider the first split, or, if they do consider multiple splits, 2nd and 3rd splits must happen so rarely that they wouldn't carry much weight in the index that was generated. Like I say, I realize this probably has little practical importance, but I still find it interesting from a theoretical point of view. Your opinion may very :-)

Any thoughts?

[williwong21]

I wouldn't worry about a risk averse play at -2 and a min. bet out.Does this concern a single deck with no DAS game?Willi.

[Antichrist]

The issue is that standing on 18 is not a good play. You can only win on a 17 or dealer bust. Further, if DAS, you have 3 chances to get a deuce, giving you powerful DD - vs only 1 chance if you stand with 9,9. Not a good play IMO

> I realize this probably has little if any
> practical value, but consider the following:

> I draw two 9s against a 2, the count is
> right on the index where the correct play is
> to split, so I do. However, I then draw
> another 9. My count hasn't changed, so I
> should split again. However, my guess is the
> index should be raised a bit (perhaps only
> by a very small fraction) for risk averse
> reasons since the split for the current
> count only raises my EV the tiniest amount
> and I'm now risking more money.

> I'm guessing most index generators either
> only consider the first split, or, if they
> do consider multiple splits, 2nd and 3rd
> splits must happen so rarely that they
> wouldn't carry much weight in the index that
> was generated. Like I say, I realize this
> probably has little practical importance,
> but I still find it interesting from a
> theoretical point of view. Your opinion may
> very :-)

> Any thoughts?

[Igor]

[ET Fan]

If you took risk into consideration on the first split, only two things have changed for the second split: 1) the removal of the nine, 2) the percent of BR at risk is changing from 2xBet/BR to 3xBet/BR, instead of 1xBet/BR to 2xBet/BR, where Bet is very small. So the first split involved a 100% increase in risk factor, whereas the second involves only a 50% increase in risk factor! Unless you have Griffin's strategy EORs memorized, you should probably ignore 1).

My advice: since you say you were tight at the index, flip a coin right at the table. Makes you look like a stuporstitious nut!

ETF

> I realize this probably has little if any
> practical value, but consider the following:

> I draw two 9s against a 2, the count is
> right on the index where the correct play is
> to split, so I do. However, I then draw
> another 9. My count hasn't changed, so I
> should split again. However, my guess is the
> index should be raised a bit (perhaps only
> by a very small fraction) for risk averse
> reasons since the split for the current
> count only raises my EV the tiniest amount
> and I'm now risking more money.

> I'm guessing most index generators either
> only consider the first split, or, if they
> do consider multiple splits, 2nd and 3rd
> splits must happen so rarely that they
> wouldn't carry much weight in the index that
> was generated. Like I say, I realize this
> probably has little practical importance,
> but I still find it interesting from a
> theoretical point of view. Your opinion may
> very :-)

> Any thoughts?

[Karel]

It is true that with any subsequent split, one should be more conservative. This may become a practical issue when splitting 10s with a large count and large bet. If the count is close to the (risk averse) index, one should not re-split.

Regards,

Karel

> I realize this probably has little if any
> practical value, but consider the following:

> I draw two 9s against a 2, the count is
> right on the index where the correct play is
> to split, so I do. However, I then draw
> another 9. My count hasn't changed, so I
> should split again. However, my guess is the
> index should be raised a bit (perhaps only
> by a very small fraction) for risk averse
> reasons since the split for the current
> count only raises my EV the tiniest amount
> and I'm now risking more money.

> I'm guessing most index generators either
> only consider the first split, or, if they
> do consider multiple splits, 2nd and 3rd
> splits must happen so rarely that they
> wouldn't carry much weight in the index that
> was generated. Like I say, I realize this
> probably has little practical importance,
> but I still find it interesting from a
> theoretical point of view. Your opinion may
> very :-)

> Any thoughts?

[Antichrist]

> It is true that with any subsequent split,
> one should be more conservative. This may
> become a practical issue when splitting 10s
> with a large count and large bet. If the
> count is close to the (risk averse) index,
> one should not re-split.

> Regards,

> Karel

Of course the count should be taken into consideration as you split. Depending on your count, the 9 may be weighted negatively. If the 1st split was very close, then depending on remaining decks or 1/2 decks, the 3rd nine might put you below the TC required to deviate from basic strategy - which would be to not split. This scenario could happen with any # of decks, but most likely you would run into this kind of nuance in SD, where the TCs can run very extreme. Suppose you get a 10 on your 1st 9, then when the 3rd 9 hits, your TC at that point might be under your matrix # at which you don't split 9s vs 2. However, I wouldn't put this under the heading of a risk-adverse play, but a basic strategy deviation based on a true count calcualtion. If not counting, basic strategy tells you to split.

[Karel]

Regardless of any changes in TC or any effect of removal, the risk aversion consideration may be significant. Say your TC is +6, you play 6 decks, and you split tens, getting 10,5 and 10,10. Even though the RC stayed the same (and thus the TC increased a little), with maximum bet out it may be optimal NOT to split the 10,10 again. This is a risk aversion consideration. The risk aversion consideration comes into question again, when considering another re-split of tens...

Karel

> Of course the count should be taken into
> consideration as you split. Depending on
> your count, the 9 may be weighted
> negatively. If the 1st split was very close,
> then depending on remaining decks or 1/2
> decks, the 3rd nine might put you below the
> TC required to deviate from basic strategy -
> which would be to not split. This scenario
> could happen with any # of decks, but most
> likely you would run into this kind of
> nuance in SD, where the TCs can run very
> extreme. Suppose you get a 10 on your 1st 9,
> then when the 3rd 9 hits, your TC at that
> point might be under your matrix # at which
> you don't split 9s vs 2. However, I wouldn't
> put this under the heading of a risk-adverse
> play, but a basic strategy deviation based
> on a true count calcualtion. If not
> counting, basic strategy tells you to split.

[Antichrist]

> Regardless of any changes in TC or any
> effect of removal, the risk aversion
> consideration may be significant. Say your
> TC is +6, you play 6 decks, and you split
> tens, getting 10,5 and 10,10. Even though
> the RC stayed the same (and thus the TC
> increased a little), with maximum bet out it
> may be optimal NOT to split the 10,10 again.
> This is a risk aversion consideration. The
> risk aversion consideration comes into
> question again, when considering another
> re-split of tens...

> Karel

I just don't agree with your idea, nothing personal. If you are not going to follow your deviation matrix, why bother to count?
That's like saying if you are playing 2 hands, a risk aversion play is not to double 11 vs 2 on your 2nd hand, if you should get get a 20 or 21 on the 1st hand. This doesn't make sense to me at all. If your TC tells you to do something and you don't do it, it should only be because the dealer exposed their hole card, or you believe there is serious heat observing your play and you're tryin to throw off the pit.

[Adam N. Subtractum]

...and it sounds like you haven't fully grasped the concept. I recommend checking out the archives at BJMath if you'd like to get a better understanding of truly optimal play.

ANS

[Don Schlesinger]

> I just don't agree with your idea, nothing
> personal.

You aren't asked to "agree" with 2+2=4. You either understand the math, or you don't. We don't usually offer "opinions" on the subject. :-)

Suggest you have a look at BJA2, Chapter 12, part II, when you have a chance.

Then reconsider your "disagreement."

Don

[ET Fan]

[Antichrist]

.....about my handle. I am not attacking anyone, neither should you. Parker? Don? This flaming is allowed? I am surprised you would allow a post of this nature. I suggest we stick to blackjack, theory, strategy, etc.

Maybe you do not like the way I dress either. I'll be sure to check with you ET Fan each morning - OK?