ShoelessD: Are we missing something?

[ShoelessD]

> Blackjack = baseball?

> Victoria
No Victoria. You took the analogy far beyond where it was meant to go.

The point was that statistically the runner on first has a better chance at scoring than the runner on second with one out. Yet, the bunt is still employed and coveted by baseball managers we consider good.

In transferring this thought to BJ, maybe we are all missing something by solely considering the math in our decisions.

I don't know what that is, if anything.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I don't know what that is, if anything.

It's nothing. In my 30 years of answering blackjack questions, I think the number one question I've seen is "Should I play one hand or two?" The number two question is, "Since, for many of us, we will never get into the 'long run,' why should we play as if the long run applied to us?"

The answer, of course, is, "How else would you propose to play?" I've given this answer a thousand times: No one blows a whistle and says, "OK, Joe, now you're in the long run; that last hand was the end of the short run for you!" The so-called "long run" is an abstract concept, and, as we play more and more hands, we approach greater certainty of achieving our objectives. But, to think that, while getting there, it makes sense to violate the dictates of intelligent play, because there's some preferable alternative is, well, simply illogical.

Don

[Parker]

> No Victoria. You took the analogy far beyond where it
> was meant to go.

No, it's just a flawed analogy.

> The point was that statistically the runner on first
> has a better chance at scoring than the runner on
> second with one out. Yet, the bunt is still employed
> and coveted by baseball managers we consider good.

Baseball statistics are not laws of mathematics. They are merely the averages of all players, of all skill levels (at least in the major leagues), over a long period of time.

There is plenty of variation in individuals. The manager may know that a particular player is very good at laying down a bunt, but often hits into double plays when swinging away.

> In transferring this thought to BJ, maybe we are all
> missing something by solely considering the math in
> our decisions.

Blackjack is different. The dealer plays to a fixed set of rules (suppose all pitchers threw 85 mph fastballs exactly waist-high across the middle of the plate). Assuming that the player is competent enough to keep the count without making mistakes and remember indices, there is no skill involved in counting. There is only one correct way to play a given hand at a given count. It's all pure mathematics.

Your rookie didn't win the double on hard 12 because he was really good at doubling - he just got lucky.

Variance is the 800 pound gorilla with which we are forced to share the table. In your original post, you wrote " . . .something tangible that can make our great cover word "variance" more predictable."

Sorry, but "predictable variance" is an oxymoron if ever there was one.