2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
3 made reference to my preferences, Blackjack that is. To clarify - The issue of EV maximizing, Risk Averse doubles and splits, variance and bankroll growth - Freightman's perspective. I combine both approaches.
All basic hard doubles, more scrutiny on some soft doubles (a2 or 3 v 4 ), all as long as index is met. EV maximizing. I will occasionally deviate, but the remaining composition will be screwed up, if I do.
I18 doubles, I use risk averse. Not really concerned about RA, more concerned about longevity and frequency of occurrence. Example 8 v 5 or 6 are I18 doubles respectively at True 3 and 1. Long term gain right at index is minimal, and is a frequent enough occurrence to be noted by the pit. The gain to be had at True 5 and 3 respectively, is simply to much to ignore. I like 8v6 at true 3, which has a good success rate. Doubling 8 v 5 is less frequent for me, since it requires, on an RA basis, a higher true count. I was lucky enough to have one of these doubles on my last trip. You can usually bet, that at true 5, I had somewhat more than chump change out there. Note the term - usually - I sometimes have my "Waiting big bet" out there, which is really a different issue.
I excercise greater caution on some splits. Example 99 v 7 index True 3. I seem to have a look no term history if getting burned (though snagged 2 aces once). For my own peace of mind, I will wait till True 5, preferably higher, to make this so,it is definitely an RA approach. I also excercise caution on 33 v2, refusing to split in negatives, as well as other personal preferences.
Insurance is taken on all good hands at index, or certain hands slightly below index, such as 20, occasionally 19. Right at index, I may decline or insure for less at crappy hands. This is a concept learned here regarding risk averse insurance. The higher the true count, regardless of hand quality, insurance is taken. People should look at insurance as an important side bet, which is break even at true 3 (hi lo) or 3.4 at halves 6 deck.
I surrender or hit 2 card 15 or 16 (ES10), using no cover, decision based on true count. My one exception here is hitting one unit 14's v 10. Very low cost.
If you play strictly EV maximizing, you need a strong bankroll, as there will be good bouts of variance. Risk averse is better for the more shoe string type bankroll. Using Risk averse doubles and splits properly, will actually make you more money. The theory here is that by lowering variance, you can increase your max bet. The higher true count levels required for risk averse capture an excellent percentage if the available Expected Value. Enough for now.
Bookmarks