Playing Errors

[bjcount]

After reviewing many of the charts which show how playing errors substantially affect your overall advantage, would it be considered an error if you deviate +1 or -1 off the TC when using indices to make your playing decision? I do not mean that you take a hit when you should stand or you double down a stiff when standing is the correct move.

For examples: 12v3 is S if TC=>+3 and you stand at +2 instead.
10v10 is DD if TC=>4 and you DD at +5

Would you consider these proper plays while just changing your adversity to risk?
Thanks
BJC

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by bjcount

After reviewing many of the charts which show how playing errors substantially affect your overall advantage, would it be considered an error if you deviate +1 or -1 off the TC when using indices to make your playing decision? I do not mean that you take a hit when you should stand or you double down a stiff when standing is the correct move.

For examples: 12v3 is S if TC=>+3 and you stand at +2 instead.
10v10 is DD if TC=>4 and you DD at +5

Would you consider these proper plays while just changing your adversity to risk?
Thanks
BJC

you could use k_c's software to check something like that.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9752

[EasyRhino]

It always gets a little touch if you're recommend playing mistakes... but you're probably okay.

1) You'll see some information about "risk adjusted" indices, which basically use higher index numbers for plays like doubles, they are more geared towards risk-of-ruin reduction rather than EV-maximization.

2) Others advise the use of "rounded" indices, where you have fewer index number stops, but you can cram a ridiculous number of different plays into them (zg, chime in?). An extreme version of this would be the reKO strategy, where there is only one index number, and all of the pivot around that.

[bjcount]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

It always gets a little touch if you're recommend playing mistakes... but you're probably okay.

1) You'll see some information about "risk adjusted" indices, which basically use higher index numbers for plays like doubles, they are more geared towards risk-of-ruin reduction rather than EV-maximization.

2) Others advise the use of "rounded" indices, where you have fewer index number stops, but you can cram a ridiculous number of different plays into them (zg, chime in?). An extreme version of this would be the reKO strategy, where there is only one index number, and all of the pivot around that.

So it would be safe to say that your refering to "general" rounding which would be similar to Auto-Monks Ben Franklin Count where he rounds indices to five and dimes. I am saying in my thread to be off by TC +/- 1 in playing decisions which you may classify as a "risk adjusted" error.

[EasyRhino]

Right, let's say you only wanted your index points at +0, +2, and +4. That would be rounding.

If you always rounded up any index that involved putting more money on the table, that would be "risk averse" adjustment.

There's also another option, if you are backcounting to the point of generally only playing positive counts, where you can learn a "counter's basic strategy".

[bjcount]

I understand what your saying, thanks for your reply.