Freightman give me a break, you are a joke...only newbies like this even listen to you.
Rathernotgivemyrealname I used Don and Wong as examples for those more recent that might have thought about the best counting systems...but obviously you are smarter than all of them or us lol. You don't answer questions, and always have to have the last word newbie...so go ahead lol.
Don, sorry for delay in response. I was on brief vacation after having fought the good fight - and this really is a good point. First, thanks for yanking my thoughts. My error was not in my thought process, rather in the way expressed.
First, I’ve often said that shoe string rolls should use RA indices, and Im sure we are both in agreement on that point. Second, I’ve commented on players, with solid rolls, using either EV maximizing approaches verses RA approaches, depending on their personal philosophies. Third, I’ve also said that I use a combination of EV maximizing and RA indices in my game, not necessarily for RA purposes, but rather for purposes of camo.
I also think it worthwhile to comment on the purpose of RA, that being to reduce the big variance associated with indices at strike point, those wagers being multi unit bets, and utilizing RA to capture a higher percentage of expected value, allowing a higher max bet and thus, actually improving overall profitability.
Now, to answer you. I harped on EV versus RA to emphasize to the more sensitive rolls of the importance of reduced variance to build roll. I failed (I did at times) to clarify and emphasize the concept of preserving roll, for stronger rolls, rolls no longer requiring the additional risk associated with bankroll building. That certainly defines me.
There is a current thread on really quick ramping, in other words, EV maximizing, with no regard to longevity, which also means no a no prisoners approach, which also means victory at sometimes huge cost.
A person needs to sleep at night - I do - and part of that is achieved through use of RA. I still intend to whip your ass on some future math argument, but in the mean time, thanks for pointing this out.
Nice post -- especially the accuracy of the language! See, you can do it when you want to!
There can always be extraneous reasons, beyond math, for doing, or not doing, something in blackjack, but my comment, as you understood, was purely on the theoretical aspect of things. You summarize very nicely when you write: "I also think it worthwhile to comment on the purpose of RA, that being to reduce the big variance associated with indices at strike point, those wagers being multi unit bets, and utilizing RA to capture a higher percentage of expected value, allowing a higher max bet and thus, actually improving overall profitability."
This is exactly correct and the essence of the argument to use RA indices, well, all the time. If you reread my Chapter 13 discussion of all this, you'll see how, for a very long time, I overlooked the aspect where RA permitted you to bet more, and, as a consequence, I felt that, if you had sufficient bankroll, RA actually hurt your bottom line. We both now know that not to be the case. But, as the article also explains, practicality may diverge from theory, as it doesn't really help me to know that, with RA, instead of betting $25, I can now bet $27.32! So, I probably have to continue to bet $25 and accept the benefit of RA in the form of reduced variance for the same bet sizes -- and that has a value of its own.
Thanks for the response. Much appreciated.
Don
Bookmarks