-
ET Fan: But, Don ...
I think he's asking something slightly different:
"I generally avoided the double against everything but dealer stiffs."
If he's not doubling, eg. 11 v 7, 8, or 9 just because he placed a large bet off the top, he's losing a chunk of EV! You need those doubles to make up for the inevitable lousy hands, which will also have "super-sized" bets. Once the hand is dealt, the whole EV|risk picture changes.
ETF
-
artguy: Re: But, ET Fan
Have I missed a step here or is there something wrong with this picture? Everything I have read says to bet the odds and when you go beyond them, you are "gambling" and taking unnecessary risk. To risk a doubled bet of 4 units on a TC of -1 instead of 2 units is questionable but to take the risk to make up for other lost big bets down the way is vary scary. There must be something I am missing here...
What I actually surmise is that at the top of the shoe the TC is not very reflective of what cards are coming up next as compared to being in the second dk. This could mean that it is a crap-shoot at the top regardless of what the TC is and the risk might be 50/50 whether you win or lose. Notwithstanding my well-honed intuitions, I would like to be put straight on this even if you have to use "Occam's razor" to do the job. Thanks!
-
ET Fan: Re: But, ET Fan
What I think you're missing is this: once the hand is dealt you have a far far better idea of your advantage than what you had looking at the TC. Example: Top of the deck, so TC = 0. I place a double unit bet. I'm dealt 5,6 v the dealers 8. Looking good, count is going UP! Unfortunately, I catch a glimpse of two other player's hands: one BJ and a TT. Oh well, TC is now slightly below -2. Guess what? I WISH I HAD PLACED A MAXIMUM BET. Even with the TC = -2, I still have ~+30% edge on this hand! YES, let me double! I'll triple or quadruple if they let me!
Ok, it's not quite so clear cut, because there's a positive EV for hitting as well. But it has to be a very close call before the risk averse play is to hit. The index for doubling 11 v 8 is -6 (SD S17), so I believe you'd have to be at about -5 for the risk aversion to dominate your decision.
I had similar questions to yours long ago, and did some calculations, and that was my general conclusion. Don was kind enough, years ago, to send me a paper by Joel Friedman (if I could only find it!) with data on risk averse indices that allows precise answers to questions like this.
ETF
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: But, ET Fan
Well, I always have my copy at arm's length and can reach it in a jiffy. What you've written above may be true, but you have to be careful not to generalize. For example, for 11 v. 9, with a 4% bet out, Joel tells us not to double at TCs below -0.9.
So, these decisions to "double at any cost" have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Don
-
ET Fan: I gotta get organized ...
4% is just about my max bet (and nobody has accused me of timid betting), in a 2d game (artguy's original hypo), which would be about ten units (not 2 "off the top"). And TC = -.9 is only 3.1 from Wong's index for this play.
But I take your point. Case-by-case. I'm sure 11 v T would be even more sensitive.
;-)
ETF
-
artguy: Re: I gotta get organized ...
Thankyou for your insights (and Don). I would be interested in reading Joel's paper on risk averse play if you can point me in the right direction. What is interesting to me is that the indice will be different for doubling if I am overbet at 2units. Exactly what that is would give me more confidence in "tilting at the windmill".
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks