[QUOTE=21frogman;273945]Nicely phrased.
I should add that the 8v6 double at plus 3 or more has some decent coin on the felt. The gain at plus 3 or more is simply too much to ignore, thus, the decision to double is made in a nano second, the act takes over requiring a second or 2 to put the money out.
That simply isn't true and is the reason I urged to reread pp. 375-377. It makes no difference what your bankroll is. By using r-a indices, the lowering of the variance immediately permits you to increase the size of your optimal bet, thereby allowing ultimate e.v. not to suffer.
There is NO DOWNSIDE to using r-a indices, and people who advocate otherwise are laboring under a misunderstanding of the concept.
Don
The concept doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you use r-a indices, you also have to make adjustments to optimal bets, so that the whole approach is internally consistent. The alternative, as you can see from the article, differs very little from using e.v-maximizing indices, which then require somewhat smaller wagers.
The bottom line, also stated in the article, is that the former approach is slightly better than the latter. Much ado about nothing? Maybe.
Don
Don, I understand what you’re saying and I use the RA indices from BJA3 for exactly the reasons stated here. The way I explain it is that you’re always looking to trade risk for EV; the RA indices show when the trade off becomes worth it.
I think, though, that there is a time when you’re better off using EV maximizing indices: when something other than your BR and/or desired ROR is limiting your maximum bets. Maybe your optimal bet is higher than table max, or store tolerance, or would create a wider spread than you want, or whatever. In that case, wouldn’t you be better off grabbing the extra EV, since your risk level is already lower than optimal?
Bookmarks