Some of the assertions in this thread are very misinformed.
Condolences to the new AP's that may, too, become misinformed by reading this thread.
Just so that everyone is on the same page, let's reassure ourselves of what "EV" means. When determining bet sizes, the IBA is typically used, but if you are going to be citing the overall percentage return that a game is "expected" to yield, then the TBA is usually cited.
The only time I could ever imagine tossing SCORE, NO, and DI to the wind, erring to the preference of EV--a statistic that, for all intents and purposes, should be disregarded when judging game quality--is if one had a bankroll of infinity dollars.
But before we enter the world of Philosophy and all of its nonsensical, imaginary cases, let's get back to reality. Game desirability must be risk-adjusted, because there is no such thing as a bankroll of infinity. Not even the very most replenishable bankroll.
Assume Andrew Provant (AP) desires to play at an RoR of 5%. If he plays to maximize his EV, he will be placing his max-bet whenever he sees the advantage. However, to keep his RoR at 5%, he will have to use a tiny unit size, and therefore will be making less money than he could be. On the other hand, if he played to maximize his SCORE, rather than EV, he would be able to use larger units, thus making more money, all while still at an RoR of 5%.
Well, now some of the more bold may say, "Ah, that's yellow. Maximize the EV and deal with the higher RoR, you chicken!" So, let's say AP decides to increases his unit size, while playing the EV maximizing strategy to the point that he now has the same return that would have been provided by the SCORE-maximizing strategy at 5% RoR. This will unequivocally raise AP's RoR; for simplicity, let's say that doing this raises AP's RoR to 13.53%. AP may now be very pleased that he now has now fudged the EV maximizing strategy in a way that it has the same return as the SCORE-maximizing strategy. However, if he were to play the SCORE-maximizing strategy at a unit-size such that RoR would become 13.53%, then the SCORE-maximizing strategy would be again victorious.
While the case of AP dealt with strategies, the same can be said about games. Let's assume that we have a DD game and an 8-deck, each of which we will play a strategy such that the EV is 2%. The EV is the same, but which game is better? Before we answer this, recall that the hourly Standard Deviation tends to be way lower when playing DD games. Therefore, for any given RoR, the return will be much better on the DD game than for the 8-deck game.
Conclusions:
1. Games cannot be described on the basis of EV alone.
2. Increased Variance is synonymous with lower return, because of the variable unit-size concept. They are one of the same, rather than two distinct entities of differing importance.
And on the subject of RA indices. I am not quite sure why exactly they are the butt of all jokes around here when they are statistically superior to EV-maximizing ones. They may not be a lot better, but they are better. I have come to the conclusion that they must be misunderstood.
The EV-maximizing indices do just what their name implies. Risk adverse indices maximize SCORE; they are not "risk-adverse" or "risk-scared," they are risk smart.
Think of it this way. It is well-known that the advantage gained for making a departure when the index is close is absolutely minimal. So, assume we have just placed our max-bet and have been dealt a hand that we may want to double-down. We calculate the TC and find it to be just above the index. Granted the EV gained for doubling here is probably well below 0.1% (as opposed to not doubling), why would you be willing to slide out another max bet here to do so? After all, you would not slide out a max-bet for your max-bet when you only had an advantage of 0.1%; if you are like most of us, you'd wait for an edge of 2-3%.
As putting out a second large bet for such a marginal advantage will increase our RoR, we will then have to decrease our unit-size, thus leading to less profit. It all comes down to this question:
"Am I losing more EV by not doing the risky play or by having to use smaller units in order to maintain a constant RoR?"
The RA index is found at the first TC where you'd be losing more EV by not making the risky play.
SP