Single Deck Indices Question?
- Thread starter SammyBoy
- Start date
Abraham de Moivre
Well-Known Member
9 vs 2 If the count is +1 or more, you DO double. Less than +1, don't double.
Throw this extra one into your brain since you will never forget the above.
9 vs 3 If the count is -1 or more, you DO double. Less than -1, don't double.
This isn't only single deck. Play multiple decks the same way.
Throw this extra one into your brain since you will never forget the above.
9 vs 3 If the count is -1 or more, you DO double. Less than -1, don't double.
This isn't only single deck. Play multiple decks the same way.
Re: Risk-aversoin
With 9 vs. 2 and a TC of +1, you would be doubling a relatively small bet anyway, so yes, you would risk the extra small bet with a small advantage.
My understanding is that risk adverse usually applies to those situations with a max bet out, where the strategy deviation gives a minimum advantage, then there is something to be said.
For example, you have a 1.00% edge with a $100 bet out. Would you want to put out $200 to get a 1.02% edge? That is, would you risk that extra $100 on a .02% gamble?
Another way to look at this is that the SD greatly increases, but the EV only increases a little. We are hoping to maximize EV/SD with our RA indices.
--Mayor
With 9 vs. 2 and a TC of +1, you would be doubling a relatively small bet anyway, so yes, you would risk the extra small bet with a small advantage.
My understanding is that risk adverse usually applies to those situations with a max bet out, where the strategy deviation gives a minimum advantage, then there is something to be said.
For example, you have a 1.00% edge with a $100 bet out. Would you want to put out $200 to get a 1.02% edge? That is, would you risk that extra $100 on a .02% gamble?
Another way to look at this is that the SD greatly increases, but the EV only increases a little. We are hoping to maximize EV/SD with our RA indices.
--Mayor
Re: Risk-aversion
Are there any good resources that discuss risk-aversion strategies as they relate to each increment of a betting spread? I've wondered what the effects of changing a spread from say 1-8 where you step up in small increments (ie 1,2,4,6,8) vs stepping up more rapidly and to slightly higher increments (ie 1,4,8,12). This is because of the mayors point, that for smaller betting values the risk may be justified since it is a smaller fraction of your bankroll. A larger number of hands are also played at the smaller count values, so I'd also like to know how this affects the outcome.
Also, is there any increased risk of being suspected of counting by stepping up in larger increments? Or is the main thing to worry about the total spread?
WW21
Are there any good resources that discuss risk-aversion strategies as they relate to each increment of a betting spread? I've wondered what the effects of changing a spread from say 1-8 where you step up in small increments (ie 1,2,4,6,8) vs stepping up more rapidly and to slightly higher increments (ie 1,4,8,12). This is because of the mayors point, that for smaller betting values the risk may be justified since it is a smaller fraction of your bankroll. A larger number of hands are also played at the smaller count values, so I'd also like to know how this affects the outcome.
Also, is there any increased risk of being suspected of counting by stepping up in larger increments? Or is the main thing to worry about the total spread?
WW21
zengrifter
Banned
Re: Risk-aversion SEE BJATTACK...
...by whats his name. zg
...by whats his name. zg
Re: Risk-aversoin
I have three points to make here.
<OL>
<LI>Even a one unit bet is still money at risk. And doubling down quadruples the variance.
<LI>Your average bet will be greater than one unit when the TC is +1. Sometimes, you would have made a larger bet and then seen some big cards elsewhere on the table.
<LI>For a very small edge (say 0.2% or less) why would you even want to double down? What if your TC conversion is off by a few cards. You're essentially betting on a coin toss.
This is when the risk-averse index could be 2,3 or more points higher than the risk-neutral number. It's worth being risk-averse on ALL marginal plays.
With 9 vs. 2 and a TC of +1, you would be doubling a relatively small bet anyway, so yes, you would risk the extra small bet with a small advantage.
I have three points to make here.
<OL>
<LI>Even a one unit bet is still money at risk. And doubling down quadruples the variance.
<LI>Your average bet will be greater than one unit when the TC is +1. Sometimes, you would have made a larger bet and then seen some big cards elsewhere on the table.
<LI>For a very small edge (say 0.2% or less) why would you even want to double down? What if your TC conversion is off by a few cards. You're essentially betting on a coin toss.
My understanding is that risk adverse usually applies to those situations with a max bet out, where the strategy deviation gives a minimum advantage, then there is something to be said.
This is when the risk-averse index could be 2,3 or more points higher than the risk-neutral number. It's worth being risk-averse on ALL marginal plays.
learning to count
Well-Known Member
You cant forget A TC of +3 doubling 9 against dealers 7!!!!!
Jim Masters
New Member
doubling 9 against a 3
With 9 against a 3 and a TC of -1 you so NOT double.
I hate this play on close dicisions anyway because
of the 2. IMHO
With 9 against a 3 and a TC of -1 you so NOT double.
I hate this play on close dicisions anyway because
of the 2. IMHO
learning to count
Well-Known Member
Re: doubling 9 against a 3
"With 9 against a 3 and a TC of -1 you so NOT double.
I hate this play on close decisions anyway because
of the 2. IMHO"
The suggested deviation indicise's for nine against 2,3,and seven I believe are 9: 2/1,3/0,4-6,7/3. HI-Lo. So at dealer up card of 2 with a tc of +1 you would double, and yes dealer up card of 3 with a tc of 0 or more you would double, and at a dealer up cards 4 through 6 you would auto double. If the dealer has a up card of 7 and you have a +3 TC you would double.
So yes if you have a dealer up card of 3 and a TC of minus 1 or less you would hit yes! IMHO
"With 9 against a 3 and a TC of -1 you so NOT double.
I hate this play on close decisions anyway because
of the 2. IMHO"
The suggested deviation indicise's for nine against 2,3,and seven I believe are 9: 2/1,3/0,4-6,7/3. HI-Lo. So at dealer up card of 2 with a tc of +1 you would double, and yes dealer up card of 3 with a tc of 0 or more you would double, and at a dealer up cards 4 through 6 you would auto double. If the dealer has a up card of 7 and you have a +3 TC you would double.
So yes if you have a dealer up card of 3 and a TC of minus 1 or less you would hit yes! IMHO
zengrifter
Banned
Re: doubling 9 against a 3
Whether you double 9v3 @ +1,0,-1 makes NO difference to your Ev - this is where you have license to round the # to 0 AND excercize INTUITION. Rounding the 9v2 to +2 provides for an RA-improved base, as well. zg
Whether you double 9v3 @ +1,0,-1 makes NO difference to your Ev - this is where you have license to round the # to 0 AND excercize INTUITION. Rounding the 9v2 to +2 provides for an RA-improved base, as well. zg
learning to count
Well-Known Member
Thanks I will use it!
Jim Masters
New Member
Definitely agree with Grifter.