My silly friend

Thunder

Well-Known Member
Another way of looking at it.

Well since he is going to be playing BJ anyway, I told him to look at it this way. While you may be uncomfortable risking $75 on a hand, you know that you would be betting $40 usually in BJ anyway, so in essence, you're risking $35 more to make an additional $110 and possibly more if you get BJ. If he puts it down in a high count, it would definitely be worth it. Even if this was the choice between taking $100,000 or going for $300,000 I think you'd be crazy not to go for the $300,000
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
pit15 said:
How is it better? You're losing EV on the hedge!!

Except in the rarest of situations where the match play is far larger then the typical amount an AP wagers, I would have zero respect for anybody who hedges a match play. If you can't tolerate the risk on it, you should get out of the business and stay out.

Reducing variance on a match play isn't free, therefore it shouldn't be done. Even in the case where you're allowed to play 2 match plays on opposite sides of a bet, you shouldn't do it. The attention you attract by doing that is -EV as well.
:confused: So if you had a choice between a $1 million sure thing and a 50/50 chance on $2 million, you would opt for the 50/50 chance? :eek: Heck, I'd be happy to get out of the business by taking the sure thing, :) while you will have a 50/50 chance of staying in the business whether you like it or not. :rolleyes: If the reason you got into the business is because you like to gamble, then there is nothing I can say. :sad: But if the reason you got into the business was to make money, then how can you turn down a sure thing? :cool2: Just my thoughts. :)

Remember, these situations are not long run propositions; they are unique short-term opportunities. The million dollar example pushes it to the extreme, but it does demonstrate the principle involved. A person with a gambling mindset might turn down a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a millionaire. You've got to admire his courage--gambling is a glamorous occupation, at least, when you're in the winner's seat. But if he loses, it becomes difficult to distinguish between courage and foolhardiness.

Also, you could imagine a homeless person with a matchplay coupon. If you're hungry, you go with the sure thing, don't you, even if you have to borrow the matching cash? Or would you rather chance starving today, in hopes of an extra day or two's rations? Take the money and run. "Sufficient the day the evils thereof."

As a practical matter, I usually play any match play I get on my blackjack session in a max bet situation. It's too little to worry about. :laugh: But don't tell me to get out of the business and stay out. I'm not in the business of gambling; I'm in the business of making money. :flame: Now give me an 80% chance of winning that $2 million, you've got my attention. It's like a gorgeous babe with a 20% chance of having AIDS. Temptation. :whip: j/k *clown*
 
Last edited:

pit15

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
:confused: So if you had a choice between a $1 million sure thing and a 50/50 chance on $2 million, you would opt for the 50/50 chance? :eek: Heck, I'd be happy to get out of the business by taking the sure thing, :) while you will have a 50/50 chance of staying in the business whether you like it or not. :rolleyes: If the reason you got into the business is because you like to gamble, then there is nothing I can say. :sad: But if the reason you got into the business was to make money, then how can you turn down a sure thing? :cool2: Just my thoughts. :)

Remember, these situations are not long run propositions; they are unique short-term opportunities. The million dollar example pushes it to the extreme, but it does demonstrate the principle involved. A person with a gambling mindset might turn down a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a millionaire. You've got to admire his courage--gambling is a glamorous occupation, at least, when you're in the winner's seat. But if he loses, it becomes difficult to distinguish between courage and foolhardiness.

Also, you could imagine a homeless person with a matchplay coupon. If you're hungry, you go with the sure thing, don't you, even if you have to borrow the matching cash? Or would you rather chance starving today, in hopes of an extra day or two's rations? Take the money and run. "Sufficient the day the evils thereof."

As a practical matter, I usually play any match play I get on my blackjack session in a max bet situation. It's too little to worry about. :laugh: But don't tell me to get out of the business and stay out. I'm not in the business of gambling; I'm in the business of making money. :flame: Now give me an 80% chance of winning that $2 million, you've got my attention. It's like a gorgeous babe with a 20% chance of having AIDS. Temptation. :whip: j/k *clown*
No, I'm talking about realistic match play situations. Where the match play is a small % of your bankroll.

I don't really care about hypothetical situations (like the million dollar match play).

Hence why I said "Except in the rarest of situations where the match play is far larger then the typical amount an AP wagers". If that is the case, you should hedge, otherwise if you have a problem dealing with the variance, how do you deal with the variance on your day to day play?

The best use of the match play (if allowed) is to use it while your doing an advantage play, but of course, there's the cost of slowing down the game and calling attention to your game, since you're basically calling over the pit by using the match play. If I was a counter I'd probably use it with a big bet, but my primary play is hole card play and that's not something I'm willing to mix in match plays with.
 
Last edited:

London Colin

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
D#&mit, Colin! You're making me think.
I do apologise! :grin:

aslan said:
It's really a personal choice. For $75, who cares?--the gambling side of me might prevail--I'm not perfect. But if it were $750,000 or a chance at $1million $500 thousand vs. zero, could anyone pass up the sure $750,000? It does clearly set forth the difference between non-gamblers and gamblers, and since advantage players are still basically gamblers (short run, at least), there may be different choices. Far be it from me to pass up a sure $750,000. I'm the guy in the quiz show audience yelling, "Take the money and run!"
For $75, I think it's not so much an issue of gambling or not, more one of maximising long-term profit or not. You can say it's a one-off opportunity, but an AP's life is a series of one-off opportunities.

A helpful comparison might be to consider how small an advantage in blackjack would be prompting you to repeatedly bet $75 on a hand, and what the risk is associated with those bets. If you then compare that with the vastly higher advantage of the baccarat matchplay (and the degree to which hedging would blunt that advantage), then it might seem odd to do anything other than 'gamble'.

But, like you say, if we were dealing with a much bigger sum, then questions of risk aversion would start to arise. There must come a point, for anyone, at which the sure thing is preferable.



aslan said:
The reason baccarat was chosen is because some casinos allow the match play coupon to be played on one side and the matching cash to be played on the other. Although when I tried this at one AC casino they required the cash to be played on the same side as the MP, so it forced additional cash for the other side.
I've never heard of that (not that that means much). But baccarat can come out ahead, regardless. It depends on things like: Does a natural pay 3:2 or 1:1 on the coupon? Do you get to keep the coupon following a push/tie?

And the comparison here is for even-money only bets. If you can use the matchplay on the baccarat tie bet, that is way better. (But a straight-up number bet on roulette would be better still.)


aslan said:
The more I think about it, the more I like the way you described. A sure thing is always better than a 50/50 chance IMO.
The 50/50 chance, done the way we have most recently discussed, would have a higher EV than the sure thing, while still not risking any loss. So you might prefer this 'partial hedge' approach, as a happy medium, half-way between the optimal, full-gamble and the totally risk-averse sure thing.
 

Mr. T

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
D#&mit, Colin! You're making me think. Yeah, same difference, but from the other side, placing the MP on the player side. The result is still zero on one side and about +$71 on the other. A bird in the hand or two (almost) in the bush. A sure thing or a chance on doubling that amount with no out-of-pocket risk in either case. Or you could just wait for a plus count at BJ to bet it. Of course, that is time consuming if you want a quick resolution, and of course you have no option to take half and run.

It's really a personal choice. For $75, who cares?--the gambling side of me might prevail--I'm not perfect. But if it were $750,000 or a chance at $1million $500 thousand vs. zero, could anyone pass up the sure $750,000? It does clearly set forth the difference between non-gamblers and gamblers, and since advantage players are still basically gamblers (short run, at least), there may be different choices. Far be it from me to pass up a sure $750,000. I'm the guy in the quiz show audience yelling, "Take the money and run!"
I knew that when ( baby) Aslan wakes up in the US he will jump into this thread. I share the same view as him. Yes, you would treat a $75 MP differently from a $750,000 MP. Gamble with the first and "Take the money and run!" in the second.
Colin, you have so much math in your head that I know it makes no difference. The real world is not like that. Sorry, Colin.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
London Colin said:
If you then compare that with the vastly higher advantage of the baccarat matchplay (and the degree to which hedging would blunt that advantage), then it might seem odd to do anything other than 'gamble'.
If I had a choice at blackjack of repeatedly winning half the face value of my matchplay (in an endless supply of match plays), I would choose that every time over risking it in a fifty-fifty bet to double it. I would simply take the sure thing hand after hand until I had enough cash to retire. Maybe taking the fifty-fifty bet you would be able to retire earlier, and maybe later, and maybe never--nothing is guaranteed--we're not talking a billion hands. I am not adverse to growing my money. I own stocks, real estate, collectibles, etc. But placing money on a sure thing is also growing one's money, and it's doing so is a more dependable way than gambling. Either we're going to view it as a long range thing, or as an occasional opportunity. I like the sure thing in either scenario, unless the amount is small in the case of the latter. In that case it really doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:

London Colin

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
If I had a choice at blackjack of repeatedly winning half the face value of my matchplay (in an endless supply of match plays), I would choose that every time over risking it in a fifty-fifty bet to double it. I would simply take the sure thing hand after hand until I had enough cash to retire. Maybe taking the fifty-fifty bet you would be able to retire earlier, and maybe later, and maybe never--nothing is guaranteed--we're not talking a billion hands. I am not adverse to growing my money. I own stocks, real estate, collectibles, etc. But placing money on a sure thing is also growing one's money, and it's doing so is a more dependable way than gambling. Either we're going to view it as a long range thing, or as an occasional opportunity. I like the sure thing in either scenario, unless the amount is small in the case of the latter. In that case it really doesn't matter.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I was suggesting comparing the risks you are prepared to take without any kind of matchplay being involved(for a given level of advantage, whenever you see that that advantage has arisen) with the matchplay's risk and advantage. It may not make much sense to eschew risk with the MP at the baccarat table, only to pick up your chips and walk over to a bj table and take a similar risk for significantly less expected reward.

I guess the most illuminating comparison would be between the amount of EV lost by hedging the MP and the size of bet you would be making at the bj table if that same amount of EV was available on the next hand. (If that makes sense.:confused:)

When it comes to dealing with a never-ending supply of blackjack matchplays, 50% of the face value would be higher than you could achieve by playing the coupons normally, so you should certainly take it! But obviously the issue would be whether to accept some smaller percentage than could be achieved by playing. And if so, how low do you go? Deal or No Deal? :)

It could be an interesting dilemma, if you had to make a choice now that would be binding for ever - a constant income, versus an investment opportunity with a higher expected income, but some degree of risk.

Without that artificial constraint, there would be no reason not to switch back and forth between the two modes, depending on the health of your bankroll. Play the matchplays while the amount you must bet is an acceptably small fraction of your bankroll; take the sure thing for a while if the risk of ruin starts to loom uncomfortably large.
 

bigplayer

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
So you agree, if you do it this way, your maximum risk is $7.50 (or $3.25 if they let you do it with matchplay on one side and $75 cash on the other)? If you do it the way they want you to do it (MatchPlay plus $75 on one side), you risk $75 out-of-pocket. My way allows you to convert your MP to cash risking only a relatively small loss.
You won't be able to bet 75 on player and put 75 MP on banker...they are two separate wagers. You would have to put 150 on player or banker and 75 + 75MP on the opposite site to get a pure offset. To avoid pissing off your client (the casino) you should use a partner to do an offset like this.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
bigplayer said:
You won't be able to bet 75 on player and put 75 MP on banker...they are two separate wagers. You would have to put 150 on player or banker and 75 + 75MP on the opposite site to get a pure offset. To avoid pissing off your client (the casino) you should use a partner to do an offset like this.
I am not a mini-baccarat player, but what we did was put MP + $75 on one side, and $150 on the other, when the dealer declined the alternative. But I was told that some casinos have allowed MP on one side and $75 on the other. I'm not saying it to be argumentative, just reporting what I was told.
 

Lonesome Gambler

Well-Known Member
aslan said:
So if you had a choice between a $1 million sure thing and a 50/50 chance on $2 million, you would opt for the 50/50 chance? :eek: Heck, I'd be happy to get out of the business by taking the sure thing, :) while you will have a 50/50 chance of staying in the business whether you like it or not. :rolleyes: If the reason you got into the business is because you like to gamble, then there is nothing I can say. :sad: But if the reason you got into the business was to make money, then how can you turn down a sure thing? :cool2: Just my thoughts. :)

Remember, these situations are not long run propositions; they are unique short-term opportunities. The million dollar example pushes it to the extreme, but it does demonstrate the principle involved. A person with a gambling mindset might turn down a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become a millionaire. You've got to admire his courage--gambling is a glamorous occupation, at least, when you're in the winner's seat. But if he loses, it becomes difficult to distinguish between courage and foolhardiness.

Also, you could imagine a homeless person with a matchplay coupon. If you're hungry, you go with the sure thing, don't you, even if you have to borrow the matching cash? Or would you rather chance starving today, in hopes of an extra day or two's rations? Take the money and run. "Sufficient the day the evils thereof."

As a practical matter, I usually play any match play I get on my blackjack session in a max bet situation. It's too little to worry about. :laugh: But don't tell me to get out of the business and stay out. I'm not in the business of gambling; I'm in the business of making money. :flame: Now give me an 80% chance of winning that $2 million, you've got my attention. It's like a gorgeous babe with a 20% chance of having AIDS. Temptation. :whip: j/k *clown*
I don't understand all the "gambling mindset" stuff here. First off, your hypothetical scenario is whether you would take $1M or a 50/50 shot for $2M. Do you see the problem here? Your expectation for each scenario is $1M, but the second scenario involves variance. The difference between this scenario and a real-life MP one is that by hedging your bets, you guarantee a win, but your overall expectation is much, much lower. A better scenario would be, "if you normally wager $1000 a hand, would you bet $1500 with a $1500 MP to win $3000 (effectively 2:1 on your wager), or would you hedge your bet to guarantee a win of $750? To someone that's already betting $1000, a $750 (of course, I made this number up) guaranteed win is nothing. A $3000 win is more valuable, even if there is variance involved.

You also said that MPs are not a long-run proposition. I disagree. Firstly, most players that put in a lot of times at the tables will find themselves in possession of many promotional coupons over the years. Secondly, your edge is so large with these coupons that it takes less time for them to hit the "long run."

No one's talking about "gambling" here: it's a matter of maximizing expectation vs. throwing away EV by hedging bets for the purpose of producing an unnecessary lock.
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
Lonesome Gambler said:
I don't understand all the "gambling mindset" stuff here. First off, your hypothetical scenario is whether you would take $1M or a 50/50 shot for $2M. Do you see the problem here? Your expectation for each scenario is $1M, but the second scenario involves variance. The difference between this scenario and a real-life MP one is that by hedging your bets, you guarantee a win, but your overall expectation is much, much lower. A better scenario would be, "if you normally wager $1000 a hand, would you bet $1500 with a $1500 MP to win $3000 (effectively 2:1 on your wager), or would you hedge your bet to guarantee a win of $750? To someone that's already betting $1000, a $750 (of course, I made this number up) guaranteed win is nothing. A $3000 win is more valuable, even if there is variance involved.

You also said that MPs are not a long-run proposition. I disagree. Firstly, most players that put in a lot of times at the tables will find themselves in possession of many promotional coupons over the years. Secondly, your edge is so large with these coupons that it takes less time for them to hit the "long run."

No one's talking about "gambling" here: it's a matter of maximizing expectation vs. throwing away EV by hedging bets for the purpose of producing an unnecessary lock.
For me, MP does not represent a long-run expectation (ie, I don't get that many). And, yes, in the short run, we are talking about gambling here. Even card counting is a short run gamble. If I could get a sure win, a lock as you call it, every time I stepped up to the blackjack table, you'd better believe that I would take it over a long term even money chance of an even larger win. I'd rather not be a gambler, even in the short run, which as we all know is not a knowable period of time except in hindsight. It is true that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but I can roast the bird in the hand and have it for supper; not so with the two birds in the bush.
 
Top