AsIseeIt: Risk-Averse

[AsIseeIt]

Can anybody point me to a site where I can find risk-averse basic strategy?

[jblaze]

Optimal risk-averse basic strategy = do not play blackjack.

> Can anybody point me to a site where I can find
> risk-averse basic strategy?

[fatcat519]

> Can anybody point me to a site where I can find
> risk-averse basic strategy?

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one correct basic strategy for any given set of rules. Risk averse indices are a different matter. See "Blackjack Attack 3", pp. 370-378.
And don't be taken in by people like John Patrick who promote bad strategies that they claim reduce risk. Maybe they do, to some extent, but they reduce e.v. even more.

[Myooligan]

> Optimal risk-averse basic strategy = do not play
> blackjack.

I like jblaze's concise answer, but for some reason I feel compelled to elaborate on it.

R-A strategy involves handing off a few pennies worth of advantage in exchange for a decrease in variance. For an optimal player, who by definition sets his risk at 13.5%, the point of r-a strategy is to allow him to increase his unit size (No pun intended, and a very different strategy would be necessary to increase that unit size). By increasing his bet size, the risk-averse player actually gets those pennies back, plus a few more, while maintaining the same risk level as before.

As a basic strategy player, there might be a handful of "close call" decisions where you could skip the double or split with negligible ev loss. Probably the best place to track down this info would be the ev charts in BJA3. Since basic strategy produces a risk of ruin of 100%, the best you can hope for is to make your money last a little longer. I'm sure this is possible (ie, r-a bs probably does differ slightly from standard bs) but I doubt such charts exist, because most people would consider it a waste of time to refine an admittedly losing strategy. Also, since we're talking about reducing short-term risk, rather than the life-long risk on which r-a strategies are generally based, I'm not even sure a theoretical framework has been developed for determining bs ra strategy.

In sum, see jblaze's post above.

[7up]

Sometimes we get advantage on top, even at a CSM table.
Such as commission, junket chips, bonus jokers...
Hit on 9 against 3 might lower down a little bit of variance.

[VerdugoJohn]

I believe you are asking for a table of risk averse indices for playing strategy variation...

i know of only a partial table, which you can find in BlackJack Attack III...the biggest change in double 10 v 10...use a TC of +7 rather than the +4 listed in Professional Blackjack or even other parts of BJA III

i would believe the risk averse variations would involve only splitting and double down decisions...and BJA III lists only a few double downs...perhaps the author will put that in BJA IV...?

[OldCootFromVA]

> Can anybody point me to a site where I can find
> risk-averse basic strategy?

You could got to bjmath.com, and look at the tables there for expected EVs for each hand for each game you're likely to find.

Normally, you'd pick the action with the best EV, but in some of the splits and doubles, the EVs are so close, you might wish to choose, for example, hit instead of double or hit instead of split in certain cases.

Some of the soft doubles and some splits are very close calls indeed but, OTOH, they don't come up all that often anyway. Also, as you'll observe in looking at those tables, you'll see where some split decisions are based on the "winning more through losing less" concept.

BJMath.com