Which group of indices would you choose?

[seriousplayer]

Use a strong count e.g. Hi-Opt II with Side Counted Aces (and 7's in a DD game) and
limit yourself to very good table conditions, using an optimal bet spread narrowed to
the point where your e.v. is only satisfactory, not greedy.

That is my 'non-mathematical' and easily comprehended reply.

Learning a stronger count might not be a variance reducer and sometimes it can lead to increase in variances.

[stopgambling]

To reduce risk wonging is the best method i can think of. It should serve just as well to reduce variance cause now you can spread smaller ( or no spread).

[ZenMaster_Flash]

" ... a stronger count might ... lead to increase in variances."

I believe that statement is substantively incorrect, and I don't think that that position can be defended.

[Freightman]

I believe that statement is substantively incorrect, and I don't think that that position can be defended.

I think what he is referring to is that a stronger count will identify more favourable situations, thus increasing negative variance as the number of increased bets fail. What is missed is that the same stronger count will keep you at minimum bets when other counts might tell you that your situation is favourable.

[seriousplayer]

I believe that statement is substantively incorrect, and I don't think that that position can be defended.

May you please explain why you think it is incorrect?

[seriousplayer]

I think what he is referring to is that a stronger count will identify more favourable situations, thus increasing negative variance as the number of increased bets fail. What is missed is that the same stronger count will keep you at minimum bets when other counts might tell you that your situation is favourable.

Increasing your bet increases variances.

[Freightman]

Increasing your bet increases variances.

Both positive and negative. Pretty sure that's what I said.

[DSchles]

There is so much misunderstanding, and people just throw around terms without really understanding the concepts. Variance is an inherent part of the game. You don't just set out to lower variance in a void. If I increase e.v. 20% by doing something and variance goes up by 10%, then I've done a wonderful thing! NOTHING matters but the SCORE. Stop discussing variance, standard deviation, BC, PE, e.v., and all these knee-jerk terms in a void. None of them alone means a goddamn thing. How many more times do I have to say it?

Don

[Freightman]

There is so much misunderstanding, and people just throw around terms without really understanding the concepts. Variance is an inherent part of the game. You don't just set out to lower variance in a void. If I increase e.v. 20% by doing something and variance goes up by 10%, then I've done a wonderful thing! NOTHING matters but the SCORE. Stop discussing variance, standard deviation, BC, PE, e.v., and all these knee-jerk terms in a void. None of them alone means a goddamn thing. How many more times do I have to say it?

Don

Don, the question was about variance, not SCORE. The comments were about variance, not SCORE. Variance should only affect short term results, long term results being more closely aligned with SCORE. If SCORE had been mentioned in the question, then SCORE would have npbeen addressed in the response.

Next time that a possibility of ambiguity comes up, I'll be sure to get your interpretation of same, so that I may respond in a manner more in line with your thought process.

[Three]

To reduce risk wonging is the best method i can think of. It should serve just as well to reduce variance cause now you can spread smaller ( or no spread).

The more big bets you make the larger the swings.

[Ryemo]

Don, the question was about variance, not SCORE. The comments were about variance, not SCORE. Variance should only affect short term results, long term results being more closely aligned with SCORE. If SCORE had been mentioned in the question, then SCORE would have npbeen addressed in the response.

Next time that a possibility of ambiguity comes up, I'll be sure to get your interpretation of same, so that I may respond in a manner more in line with your thought process.

I think too many posters here put way too much time and energy into things that are just not that important.

Hey guys. You want to decrease variance? Don't play. Simple. Variance is inevitable. There seems to be the misconception that if you learn multiple side counts, learn 100+ indices, etc., you will some how escape variance. It's not going to happen! Frankly, as long as you're playing on a low enough RoR, why does variance bother you? Keep your RoR in check, re-size your bets if needed, and keep plugging away at the hours! That's it. If you have an advantage, push the money out. If not, pull back. Isn't everyone aware that all we're doing is playing one big/long session anyway?

There are certain things you can do to reduce variance. Some will help you in the long run and some won't. LS is one example. LS will increase EV and reduce variance. There are other ways to reduce variance, but it comes with a price. Example/ Insure strong hands when the index is close (20s and BJs). This will reduce variance, but it's a -EV move. Use Risk Averse index plays. This will reduce variance, but you won't maximize profits. But my question again: If you're playing on an extremely low RoR, then why are you so afraid of variance. Grind those hours!!!

[seriousplayer]

But my question again: If you're playing on an extremely low RoR, then why are you so afraid of variance. Grind those hours!!!

Because impossible losing streak happens. I didn't think you can still lose after playing with an advantage for 8790 hours but AP keep telling me this otherwise. Anyways I don't know of any AP that have a losing streak of 8970 hours. Assuming you are not making any mistakes and your basic strategy, bet and index deviation are perfect.

[Freightman]

I think too many posters here put way too much time and energy into things that are just not that important.

Hey guys. You want to decrease variance? Don't play. Simple. Variance is inevitable. Yup

There seems to be the misconception that if you learn multiple side counts, learn 100+ indices, etc., you will some how escape variance. It's not going to happen! Agreed.

Frankly, as long as you're playing on a low enough RoR, why does variance bother you? There is a difference between maximizing profit and optimal betting.

and Keep your RoR in check, re-size your bets if needed, and keep plugging away at the hours! That's it. If you have an advantage, push the money out. If not, pull back. Isn't everyone aware that all we're doing is playing one big/long session anyway? Yes, essentially, though indivuduals departure points can be manipulated.

There are certain things you can do to reduce variance. Some will help you in the long run and some won't. LS is one example. LS will increase EV and reduce variance. Absolutely agreed.

There are other ways to reduce variance, but it comes with a price. Example/ Insure strong hands when the index is close (20s and BJs). This will reduce variance, but it's a -EV move. Maybe so, but no concerns about insuring strong hands when slightly below index, just as in no harm in not insuring shit hands right at index, though insurance at stronger trues over index is a must - you are right though regarding long term EV.

Use Risk Averse index plays. This will reduce variance, but you won't maximize profits. Rethink that one - RA splits and doubles will allow you to raise your max - not playing risk averse will maximize EV based on the lower max.

But my question again: If you're playing on an extremely low RoR, then why are you so afraid of variance. Many reasons which include impossible losing streaks or not having the access to hours played.

Grind those hours!!!

Ryemo, I've broken up your interesting post, putting my comments in the last sentence of the sections.