Aruuba: Question on Table 10.65

[Aruuba]

I was just wondering why the BC Practical spread of 1-3 only goes to 1-2.5.

In other words a bet of $600 wouldn't have occured until past +9?

The optimal spread is 1-3 but I guess using some $175-$525 practical spread just wouldn't be good, or as good, for some reason?

I know you meant the $500 top bet because the 1-2.5 spread multiplies out.

And of course, the big question, does this make the "BC Pract (1-3)" description a typo ?

[Norm Wattenberger]

When you attempt to create "rational" bets that are as close as possible to the required risk (13.5% in these tables), sometimes the numbers just don't work out well. The optimal starting bet is $170. But, no one is going to use $170 as their one unit bet. So, it was rounded up to $200. (The rationalization routine tried $150 and ended up with a worse SCORE.) Probably, a $600 bet makes sense above a TC of 9 providing a spread of 3; but when do we see these events? "Rationalized" bets are always a compromise.

Note: The CVCX rationalization routine does NOT simply calculate optimal bets and then round. It tries numerous rational betting ramps and looks for the best compromise between required risk and SCORE. I believe this is unique.


Serious Blackjack Software

[Aruuba]

> When you attempt to create "rational" bets
> that are as close as possible to the required risk
> (13.5% in these tables), sometimes the numbers just
> don't work out well. The optimal starting bet is $170.
> But, no one is going to use $170 as their one unit
> bet. So, it was rounded up to $200. (The
> rationalization routine tried $150 and ended up with a
> worse SCORE.) Probably, a $600 bet makes sense above a
> TC of 9 providing a spread of 3; but when do we see
> these events? "Rationalized" bets are always
> a compromise.

> Note: The CVCX rationalization routine does NOT simply
> calculate optimal bets and then round. It tries
> numerous rational betting ramps and looks for the best
> compromise between required risk and SCORE. I believe
> this is unique.

Thank you. I sort of figured it was something like that.
I certainly don't have that iterative capability of maximizing stuff and have complete faith in whatever it says.

I guess I stupidly, but in my behalf at least I know it ain't probably "right", if I want to change Don's tables to different spreads, just fool around with a bunch of different ones trying to find one with the best EV/SD ratio.

Or, sometimes, take a crack at some of those "optimal bet" formulae I've seen in places. How well would that work?

I guess, in this specific case, and, since you say it maybe tried $150-$450, I guess I was wondering if it tried $175 as a base unit and went to $525 for a 1-3 spread, as I would probably stupidly try to do, and, if it did, as I'm sure it did, why maybe it didn't work out as a better compromise.

Never mind, I'm sure it did, and that's why it is what it is. Guess my brain will never grasp the finer points.

And I guess it just goes to show, maybe, how, sometimes, increasing a spread when back-counting may not really do that much anyway.

Like, in this case, spreading 1-2.5, let alone 1-3, doesn't really do squat compared to doing 1-4 anyway. So why even bother with a 1-4 in this case anyway I guess.

On a side note, it's always interested me a little how much ROR can change based on the compromise you speak of compared to full-kelly 13.53% ROR. Stuff like Table 10.62 going from 13.5% to 6.7% with a practical spread 1-12, etc.
Many examples much more extreme than that even.

Thanks again for your reply.