bfbagain: To SSR:Answers, answers.

[Brick]

Not sure sure what you mean by "One more time," I'm not SSR. The only reply I got was from BJfan implying I'm some kind of a ground hog. Maybe he got offended when I crawled into his underground operations of secured territory.

I appreciate your time to reply ,but it really was not neccesary to explain to me about SCORE,basic concepts, why single deck is better and so forth. I'm not a ploppy or newbie when it comes to blackjack. I certainly agree with you,however let's comment about my reply to BJF's sims,which I simply said under the conditions he used for simulations of win-rate,score,SCORE or whatever he wishes to call it. The variance, may I say, is HUGE for 6 deck when compared to single-deck. I certainly hope we dont need Cacarulo's aid to verify this,do we?

Under the conditions of simulations BJF used, dollars lost and won during 6 deck sessions will be about 3 times higher than single-deck,give or take a few hundred bucks. It's the spread needed at 6 deck to achieve the same win rate as single deck that has caused variance to increase dramatically. The frequency of TC'c had little to do with variance. So basicly if SSR is trying to achieve the same win rate going from single deck to 6 deck and ask the question of variance being higher at 6 deck,the answer is simply,yes it is. I read a few of SSR's post and this seems to probably be what I thought he was implying, but confusing everybody with too many variables and simulations. If I'm wrong,I'm sure SSR will put me in my place.

Good Ground Hog Day

[Parker]

My reply wasn't really aimed at you personally. I know you understand this stuff.

Rather, it was an attempt to summarize the whole thread, in simple language, for the benefit of any beginners who might still actually be following it, and to show that what appears to be a contradiction isn't really one at all.

It's the spread needed at 6 deck to achieve the same win rate as single deck that has caused variance to increase dramatically.

Or to put it even more simply, we see bigger swings for the simple reason that we are putting a lot more money on the table -- not because the shoe game is inherently more volatile than the SD game.

This is, after all, the beginner's page. :-)

[Don Schlesinger]

> It's the spread needed at 6 deck to achieve
> the same win rate as single deck that has
> caused variance to increase dramatically.
> Or to put it even more simply, we see bigger
> swings for the simple reason that we are
> putting a lot more money on the table -- not
> because the shoe game is inherently more
> volatile than the SD game.

Too many times during this much longer than necessary thread, we've talked about SCOREs and variance and volatility as if they were completely separate concepts, not in some way linked -- which simply isn't true.

SCORE is the square of DI, which, in turn, is simply the Sharpe Ratio for a game, or EV/SD.

So, let's say that we all agree, for a given set of rules, spread, etc., that the single-deck game has the superior SCORE to the shoe game. It is, inherently, the better game. But now, you somehow force the two EVs to be identical, through size of unit, manipulation of spread, or whatever. So now, the two numerators (EV) are the same, yet we know that the DI for the single-deck game is superior to that of the shoe. That could only be true (since EVs are forced to be identical) if the SD of the single-deck game is smaller than the SD of the shoe game. This isn't rocket science!

But, again, as Parker and so many others have now stated, almost ad nauseam, this is clearly not the way to compare the volatility of the two games, nor (at least in my mind) what our original questioner had in mind.

I believe we've beaten this question to death. It would be just wonderful if we could all move on. :-)

Don