Surrender abuse

[BlackHead]

After getting my ass handed to me for 5 days straight and losing half of my bankroll me I decided to extend the trip another 5 days. Instead of reevaluating my optimal bet I decided to keep it the same and instead abuse the surrender option. I noticed on CVCX whenever there was a surrender rule the 75% rule for a two hand optimal bet doesn't apply. What I did was bet 3x250 instead of 2x250 or 1x150, I've read on BJA3 that for three hands you should bet 57% but I assumed that didn't apply where there was a surrender option because of CVCX. Also, I went as far as playing 3 hands vs the dealer heads-up. I remember reading in BJA3 that you get more money out betting optimally with one hand then with 2 hands at 75% or 3 at 57% but I figured since I had three hands at 100% I would put more money out and soak up all the good cards.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nyne]

How would betting 2 or 3 spots of $x possibly have the same risk as 1 hand of $x? You are wrong about that. Also, I really suggest you edit your post to remove the details about the serious heat you received, as it could easily out you to any of the crew involved, however unlikely it is they will see it.

[bigplayer]

Your numbers are all off. late Surrender reduces variance from 1.32 to around 1.28)

[BlackHead]

What I mean is, when you set your optimal bets on CVCX playing lets say half-kelly with the surrender rule. Your optimal bet with one hand is exactly the same for 2 hands with just a slight increase in risk. What I was wondering is what percentage off your one hand bet would you take off to bet three hands with the surrender option involved. I figured I was playing on therisky side but I think I was still under 5% risk for an extremely high score and win-rate. Its literally only a 1.5% risk or ruin increase with 1x100 to 2x100. Maybe 3 max bets with the surrender option available, could be worth the risk from time to time.

[bigplayer]

Surrender does not change covariance of multiple blackjack hands to the dealer's hand. Since your optimal surrender one hand betting schedule (ramp) was worked out by CVCX based on surrender, overbetting while playing two hands increases your risk of ruin by the same amount regardless of whether surrender is present or not. Surrender also does not change the effects of card eating thus it's virtually never optimal to play three hands unless you KNOW it's going to be the final round you're going to play prior to a shuffle. ((Unless I'm somehow misunderstanding your question)). Surrender does not make 1@$100 have the same risk as 2@$100 because your 1@$100 bet already assumes surrender. Even if it did not, if your non-surrender optimal bet is 1@$100 your surrender optimal bet would only be about 1@$103 for the same percentage advantage.

[BlackHead]

Surrender does not change covariance of multiple blackjack hands to the dealer's hand. Since your optimal surrender one hand betting schedule (ramp) was worked out by CVCX based on surrender, overbetting while playing two hands increases your risk of ruin by the same amount regardless of whether surrender is present or not. Surrender also does not change the effects of card eating thus it's virtually never optimal to play three hands unless you KNOW it's going to be the final round you're going to play prior to a shuffle. ((Unless I'm somehow misunderstanding your question)). Surrender does not make 1@$100 have the same risk as 2@$100 because your 1@$100 bet already assumes surrender. Even if it did not, if your non-surrender optimal bet is 1@$100 your surrender optimal bet would only be about 1@$103 for the same percentage advantage.

I see what you mean but what got me started on this notion is the fact that CVCX recommends betting 100% of your optimal bet for 2 hands. Im guessing it is because of risk vs reward, the win rate and variance increase while the SCORE stays the same and still betting the same kelly fraction. Im curios to know what the three hand optimal bet would be on CVCX. Im aware that the optimal bet barely changes for one hand, like you said 1@100 compared to 1@103 but thats not the case for multiple hands optimally according to CVCX. It would be 2@100(surrender) vs 2@75(No surrender). I'm probably just dumb or "silly" like Don likes to say but I cannot wrap my head around 2@100 or 3@300 VS 1@100 heads up dosent put more money on the table and eat up more good cards. I can see how 2@75 or 3@57 dont but not vice versa. The two main problems that I know come with that kind of action is high variance and heat. I feel like I have the heat the department taken care of tho with about 5 years in drama classes.

To keep the question a simple as possible, what would be the optimal bet for three hands with the surrender option if the optimal bet happened to be 1@100 to begin with?

[DSchles]

"To keep the question a simple as possible, what would be the optimal bet for three hands with the surrender option if the optimal bet happened to be 1@100 to begin with?"

To keep the answer simple: three hands of $58 each.

Don

[BlackHead]

Fair enough.... But it still blows me away that for two hands CVCX shows the optimal bet for 2 hands is 2@100 when optimal bet for 1 hand is 1@100. That seems a lot like two hands of 100% then two hands of 75%. Now I don't know if to listen to CVCX or still deduct 75% for two hands for my optimal bet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lanbo]

Fair enough.... But it still blows me away that for two hands CVCX shows the optimal bet for 2 hands is 2@100 when optimal bet for 1 hand is 1@100. That seems a lot like two hands of 100% then two hands of 75%. Now I don't know if to listen to CVCX or still deduct 75% for two hands for my optimal bet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ROR should change for 2@100 or 1@100, for the same ROR, it would be 1@100 or 2@73.

[bigplayer]

Probably only looks like CVCX is recommending that due to chip size constraints and bet simplification. You are obviously doing something wrong because what you are saying is incorrect. Surrender does not change the covariance, period so 2@100 cannot have the same risk as 1@100, you'll be overbetting by the same margin you would without surrender.

[BlackHead]

Yes it does change but the optimal bet betting half-Kelly recommends betting the second hand at 100% the value of the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlackHead]

Nope even under minimum bet chip size. RoR goes up a percent or two that's about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigplayer]

Risk of ruin going up a few percent is pretty substantial considering half Kelly is a 2.3% risk of ruin. I'm telling you that what CVCX is suggesting as "optimal" cannot be correct and if it's suggesting that you are somehow forcing that result based on your settings.