Ramp

[Krainn]

This is incorrect. EV is additive. They have the same EV. Due to covariance however, there is less risk when spreading the same amount to multiple spots.

So, in a perfect world with no heat, I could spread to 4 x 15 at my max bet and have substantially less risk? I could have sworn I read that to have the same EV you have to have more over two hands than you have on one.

 

[London Colin]

I think it may be that the original question (and some of the responses) are referring to EV in the sense of win-rate, the expected value of an hour's play, rather than the expected value of one round with your max bet (of either 1 x 60 or 3 x 20) out.

It is, after all, the former that would help drive the decision about which way to bet.

 

[London Colin]

I could have sworn I read that to have the same EV you have to have more over two hands than you have on one.

What you may have read was that you can bet more in total when spreading to multiple hands, without increasing the overall risk. (Or conversely, as Gronbog said, if you bet the same total amount on multiple hands instead of just one, then the risk falls.)

Either that, or as I alluded to in my previous post, you are confusing the EV of a single round with the win-rate over a period of time.

 

[sagefr0g]

far as multiple hands, anyone who has the book, Wong's Professional Blackjack has a chapter Finer points, in which a subsection The Optimal Number of Simultaneous Hands is discussed, pg 208 - 211.
ideas put forth, for being alone at table, being at a table with other players, issues of table limits, risk, how optimal betting is affected when spreading to more hands, also the fact how spreading to more hands or not affects penetration.
also xengrifter has put forth grifters gambit, far as number of hands played, sorta thing.

 

[Taff]

I think it may be that the original question (and some of the responses) are referring to EV in the sense of win-rate, the expected value of an hour's play, rather than the expected value of one round with your max bet (of either 1 x 60 or 3 x 20) out.

Spot on. Whilst it is the case that the reduction in wager has been offset by the increase in the number of hands thus causing the E.V to remain constant on that hand, the effect of using up 8.1 cards instead of 2.7 for the same wager means that the opportunity to put that same money on the table decreases. Win rate for that period of time (shoe/hour) will decrease. Variance will increase also. The variance on an average hand being around 1.33 with adittional hands increasing this by just under 0.5(co variance) depending on rules. So in this scenario variance has increased to 2.33 or thereabouts I fink. Please feel free to shoot me down in flames as I still consider myself to be learning.

 

[sagefr0g]

i thought the magic of covariance was that variance was reduced, in an overall sense?
edit:would a team of two players, playing at separate tables, essentially have covariance of zero, each betting some freebie chips that they share as a bankroll, essentially be hedging their bets, even if they only played bs? idea being they could convert a good bit of the freebie chips to real money?end edit

edit: my premise regarding the two players at separate tables with freebie chips creating a hedge by having a covariance of zero is erroneous. they would actually want some covariance greater than zero in order to hedge variance at all. end edit

 

[gronbog]

The variance on an average hand being around 1.33 with adittional hands increasing this by just under 0.5(co variance) depending on rules. So in this scenario variance has increased to 2.33 or thereabouts I fink. Please feel free to shoot me down in flames as I still consider myself to be learning

If you spread from 1 to 3 spots while keeping the per-spot bet the same, then the total variance increases as you describe. When spreading from 1 to 3 spots while keeping the total bet the same (as is being discussed above) the total variance decreases.

would a team of two players, playing at separate tables, essentially have covariance of zero

Yes. They can each play as if they had access to the entire bankroll.

 

[Taff]

edit:would a team of two players, playing at separate tables, essentially have covariance of zero

I'm winging it now..lol but I'm guessing the answer is yes due to them playing against 2 seperate dealer hands whereas 2 spots on 1 table plays 1 dealer hand and are covariant with that.

 

[London Colin]

i thought the magic of covariance was that variance was reduced, in an overall sense?
edit:would a team of two players, playing at separate tables, essentially have covariance of zero, each betting some freebie chips that they share as a bankroll, essentially be hedging their bets, even if they only played bs? idea being they could convert a good bit of the freebie chips to real money?end edit

When I read that I was struggling to understand what you meant by 'hedging their bets'.

If you mean it would be a bad idea for two players (each with some amount of bonus chips that need to be played through) to sit at the same table and play at the same time (because of the covariance), then that is certainly true. They should either play at different tables or at different times if they want to reduce the chance of greatly under/overshooting the expected value of their combined bankroll of bonus chips.

But if they truly wanted to 'hedge their bets', they would choose a game like baccarat, where they could sit down together at the same table and take opposing positions on each hand (assuming that wouldn't get them thrown out of the casino).

 

[sagefr0g]

@ London Colin
lol, now that you mentioned it, i'm not exactly laser sure on what i meant by 'essentially hedging bets' either.
but yup, like your example of baccarat. making bets on opposing positions, sorta thing.
so i guess, the blackjack tactic of two players, one bankroll, playing at two tables, would only be hedging bets with respect to variance, not so much like opposing positions in baccarat, craps or roulette, although for those latter three games, it's still a matter of diminishing variance. i once tried to make opposition bets on a roulette machine with some freeplay and the machine actually refused my bets, complained to me that i wasn't making a bet with high enough variance, lol.

 

[London Colin]

@ London Colin
lol, now that you mentioned it, i'm not exactly laser sure on what i meant by 'essentially hedging bets' either.
but yup, like your example of baccarat. making bets on opposing positions, sorta thing.
so i guess, the blackjack tactic of two players, one bankroll, playing at two tables, would only be hedging bets with respect to variance,

I wouldn't tend to use the word hedging at all in that context. I can just about see how its definition could be stretched to cover this case, but it doesn't seem quite right to me.

Generally speaking a hedge is an additional bet/investment designed to offset losses that might be made on an existing bet/investment, by taking the opposing view. A 'perfect hedge' guarantees the same return, regardless of which bet wins.

Usually there is a cost associated with hedging. One way or another, you have to pay for what is effectively a form of insurance.

 

[sagefr0g]

I wouldn't tend to use the word hedging at all in that context. I can just about see how its definition could be stretched to cover this case, but it doesn't seem quite right to me.

Generally speaking a hedge is an additional bet/investment designed to offset losses that might be made on an existing bet/investment, by taking the opposing view. A 'perfect hedge' guarantees the same return, regardless of which bet wins.

Usually there is a cost associated with hedging. One way or another, you have to pay for what is effectively a form of insurance.

i agree London, it's definitely a stretch, or perhaps a spectrum of the ideal idea. definitely my examples don't offer a full payback on free play, sorta thing. like i believe Grosjean suggests other methods for free play that have the potential to reap even greater benefits than just converting a portion of the free play to real money, sort of thing. http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/beyondcouponsbjfo.pdf

 

[sagefr0g]

@London Colin :
i believe i've realized your point above more fully and have amended my original post regarding hedging and covariance.
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/ramp.54919/page-2#post-491252