> I think "risk-adjusted" is best;
> it's the term used in finance.
> Don
Don
You are in a unique position. If you feel changing the term from "risk averse" to "risk-adjusted" is worthwhile, you have the ability to make the change (BJA 2.)
Must be nice!
> You are in a unique position. If you feel
> changing the term from "risk
> averse" to "risk-adjusted" is
> worthwhile, you have the ability to make the
> change (BJA 2.)
> Must be nice!
Well, that chapter has just be formatted and proofread, but that doesn't mean I couldn't add a sentence or two. I'm not sure it's worth it, but I'll give it some thought.
Clearly, these are "risk-adjusted" indices in that they take not just e.v. but risk into consideration, just as stock returns sometimes do.
But, the reason that we make the changes in the first place is because we have an "aversion" to accepting seemingly unnecessary extra risk that isn't commensurate with the extra (minimal) return the play provides us.
Tough call.
Don
> Clearly, these are "risk-adjusted"
> indices in that they take not just e.v. but
> risk into consideration, just as stock
> returns sometimes do.
> But, the reason that we make the changes in
> the first place is because we have an
> "aversion" to accepting seemingly
> unnecessary extra risk that isn't
> commensurate with the extra (minimal) return
> the play provides us.
> Tough call.
I think you just summed it up perfectly. The player is risk-averse (not risk-adjusted). The indices are risk-adjusted (not risk-averse).
I like Risk-Adjusted because the overall risk is unchanged. The point of using RA indexes is that you can increase your bets for a greater win rate with the same risk. So, overall risk is not averted.
> But, the reason that we make the changes in
> the first place is because we have an
> "aversion" to accepting seemingly
> unnecessary extra risk that isn't
> commensurate with the extra (minimal) return
> the play provides us.
> Tough call.
> Don
> I got a good laugh out of that,you're
> probably correct!?
> I know,I'm not too good at clearly
> expressing stuff. If you will,let me try
> again.
> Ok,let's imagine we know a card counter
> who's not overbetting and just because his
> minimum bet is black he's not so easy to
> give it up and chooses to put up a good
> fight while striving for any possible tactic
> or strategy that will improve his results.
> Anyone can still think of this guy's
> strategy as being
> greedy,chicken,stingy,stubborn or stupid,
> but all he's trying to do is improve his
> game, and protect his (risk averse,if you
> will) investment.
> Brick
All the experts have already weighed in on the r-a issue, but it sounds to me like what you're really asking is how to minimize your variance.
If you're "fighting" to hold on to every chip and looking to put less money on the table in marginal situations, something's got to give. In this case, it'll be you're winrate.
You can play all sorts of games with Norm's CVData and design a system that will lower your variance -- to a point. You're variance can't be 0, but your winrate can.
From a practical standpoint, the best way to reduce your variance is to find games that offer surrender. Surrender lowers your variance AND increases your winrate -- a win-win deal.
> I think you just summed it up perfectly. The
> player is risk-averse (not risk-adjusted).
> The indices are risk-adjusted (not
> risk-averse).
So, in a nutshell, what we have are risk-adjusted indices for the risk-averse player!!
Don
Someone who is "afraid" to lose a min bet is betting too much. Am I wrong about that?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks