Have to live with huge S.D.?

Am I missing something here? So I'm not a fan of deviation. I was contemplating ways to somehow have conservative, surefire gains, instead of having to deal with determining a net gain after significant losses. I thought, if I decrease the spread, maybe that would make more steady and conservative gains. Of course, this goes against conventional wisdom of having big bet spreads.

As I ran simulations to find spreads that would still work, I was able to lower S.D. at a cost to everything else. win rates, N0, DI, SCORE, yada yada. Of course the opposite was true, the best SCORE, win rates, etc, would have the highest S.D.

I play using a small spread for camouflage purposes and because at least from the looks of it, it does give surefire small gains. What am I missing here?

P.S.
I remember reading in BJ Attack about how Don advocates using flat bets even! of course this is wonging in @ +2. Not necessarily the most efficient way to play, but he emphasized the camouflage advantage of flat betting this way.

Jack Black,

I think the more wider you spread your bets, the larger the S.D. Say if are using a 1-20 spread to attack an H17 game with no surrender with 8 decks in Atlantic City, you would have to use an aggressive spread to beat the game. Also certain games (such as games that allow DAS and splitting up to 4 hands and Spanish 21 where you can double on any number of cards and surrender after the dealer checks for a natural, variance is higher and because S.D = squared root of variance, the S.D is a bit more higher.

If you want to use a diminished spread, you may make a small profit because its hard to attack a shoe game with hard rules (such as 8 decks with H17). If you play a pitch game, you use only a small spread and thus this reduces variance and S.D. Some pitch games reduce variance by restricting the rules (such as doubling on 11 only, no DAS at all). However penetration is also another important factor in pitch games. Any pitch games which pays 3-2 for BJ and with 70% + penetration is considered a good pitch game and you can use a small spread (1-4) to even beat the game - but a pitch game which has restrictive rules and is dealt to 50% penetration, a more wider spread has to be used. This creates a more wider S.D.

what does that mean to "beat the game?" The simulation I've been running is for a game that only deals out 42 cards in a DD game. The 1-4 spread has minimal S.D. but inefficient everything else. The win rate is still positive. My main question is....Do we desire large S.D.?

We desire a high SCORE. Maximize your SCORE, and you won't go wrong. Wong like a bastard too, the fewer hands you play at a disadvantage, the less your bankroll will fluctuate.

If you want a method of making money with low SD, then get a salaried job. You're not going to find it in blackjack.

I'm glad that you're now acknowledging that your previous post of always being up after an hour of play was totally absurd.

If you want a method of making money with low SD, then get a salaried job. You're not going to find it in blackjack.


So what are the exact disadvantages to having a low S.D.?


I'm glad that you're now acknowledging that your previous post of always being up after an hour of play was totally absurd.

I know, I'm still a noob. But my goal is to minimize the variance or overcome it, and I find that this low spread method is conducive for that. I would have assumed that smaller spread on a pitch game would help the N0 but NO! it does so at a cost to the win rate. but why?

Right. Using a larger bet spread should decrease the variance, not increase it. For example, using a $5-$100 spread will have lower variance, a higher EV and lower RoR than using a $25-$100 spread. Wonging in/out and using a $0-2x$50 spread will have much lower variance as well (and higher EV, SCORE, lower N0 and all that good stuff). There are several ways to manage variance including Wonging, increasing the spread, playing multiple hands, adjusting your unit size, and some other techniques mentioned in the link below. Schlesinger’s book should give you a very good understanding of managing variance.

Lowering your EV in order to reduce the variance is not a good idea. The problem is that you are reducing the short-term variance but increasing the long-term risk. You need to look at the RoR instead of the hourly SD. Your hourly SD might be decreasing but your EV is shrinking faster than your SD. You are earning much less money for only a little less risk. Your hourly swings might be smaller but your chance of going broke is higher because you are making less of a profit for almost the same amount of risk. As Schlesinger puts it, you are getting less "bang for the buck."

Using a larger spread actually does the opposite. Your EV should increase faster than your SD does. You are earning much more money for slightly more risk. It is the risk vs. reward ratio that you want to maximize. Just be sure to adjust your unit size for the bigger spread. Obviously you can't switch from a $25-$100 spread to a $25-$250 and expect things to be fine. You would need to adjust to a lower unit, like $10-$100. Your bankroll should give you an indication of what your max bet will be, then work the bet spread down from there.

If you’re looking for conservative, surefire gains in a casino then you’re in the wrong business. Card counting is definitely not an appropriate vehicle for your investment. The sooner you realize that, the better off you will be. If you are still interested in gambling for a profit, there is some good information in the Frequently Asked Questions thread:

Q: I didn’t realize that I needed such a big bankroll to count cards. Can I still play with a smaller bankroll?
A: Sure, as long as you understand the risks you are taking. If you are able to add some money to your bankroll regularly then you can play a little more aggressively. Here are some tips on playing with a small bankroll and supplementing your bankroll:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5655
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=5939
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9604
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9258

-Sonny-

Wow, thank you Sonny, yet again. But this is exactly why I'm on here still pondering this question.

Right. Using a larger bet spread should decrease the variance, not increase it. For example, using a $5-$100 spread will have lower variance, a higher EV and lower RoR than using a $25-$100 spread. Wonging in/out and using a $0-2x$50 spread will have much lower variance as well (and higher EV, SCORE, lower N0 and all that good stuff).

I plugged in some sims into cvdata and got these results for a decent DD game:

spread SD Win rate
1-4 19.28 $41.56
1-8 27.97 $52.73
1-10 33.94 $56.24
1-15 45.95 $59.96

So am I missing something here? I don't see any decrease in variance at all.


Lowering your EV in order to reduce the variance is not a good idea.

Lowering the EV is not my plan, it is the result of lowering the spread to achieve a lower SD.

Your hourly SD might be decreasing but your EV is shrinking faster than your SD. You are earning much less money for only a little less risk.…..Using a larger spread actually does the opposite. Your EV should increase faster than your SD does. You are earning much more money for slightly more risk.

By the results I just listed, is the amount of EV that increased worth the amount of change in SD?

You may want to refrain from using absolute terms like "surefire"
It has little (or no) proper application to advantage in blackjack.

You said:

" ... is for a game that only deals out 42 cards in a DD game."

You lost me there. What was the point of selecting a penetration point of 40% ?

Isn't AP playing a surefire way of winning at blackjack? more surefire than progression betting or praying to the gods, or jesus, or david koresh, or whoever ploppies believe in.

I should have said "desiring smaller fluctuations"

as regards to the weird penetration. I was trying to recreate vegas strip environment variables. if it works with the crappy conditions there, it's got to work everywhere else with better conditions.

quick side note, I did see a ploppy who renewed his faith in jesus after losing $2k to come back in the positive. Shouting "thank you lord, I'll never turn my back on you!" and falling to his knees. He then felt it was his duty to convert everyone around him. I thought I was at some televangelist's sermon.

You said:

"… as regards to the weird penetration. I was trying to recreate vegas strip environment variables."

I have NEVER seen such poor penetration.

Below 50% penetration ?

Have I missed something ?

well, next time I'll actually count the cards played out. For me, I can't eyeball the difference between 52 and 42 cards, but playing at the hilton and palms, that cut card notch was set pretty low to be 52 cards. and then there's the dealer set ones that are supposed to be 50% but sometimes ending up being 40%.

YES, the notch indeed is LOW.

but you have it backwards.

The penetration is DEEP, not shallow !

How much was bet at each TC for the different spreads?

-Sonny-

I believe the variance as a percentage of the average bet will be greater with the 5-100 spread as compared to the 25-100 spread. The former is 1:20, the latter 1:4.

Yep...just checked

5-100
Average bet 12.67
Win/hand $0.16
SD/hand $27.37
RoR @ 10K 1.3%

25-100
Average bet 39.12
Win/hand $0.18
SD/hand $53.78
RoR @ 10K 28.9%

So the variance is lower in the 5-100 case, not because of the spread, but because the average bet is lower.

I keep it straight this way. Larger spread means larger average bet. Larger average bet means larger expected winning. Higher reward brings higher risk. Higher risk means higher variance.

I've attached an excel file. highlighted along the bottom are the spreads in question. the rest are other spreads I've been dissecting. thanks in advance

Don't you mean larger spread means smaller average bet?

Also, you're saying that the smaller spread of 25-100 is better because there is a higher reward at the cost of higher risk?

You aren't seeing a decrease in variance because you are looking at units, not dollars. A SD of 45.95 units seems higher than a SD of 19.28 units, but if you include the fact that the unit sizes are $27 and $100 respectively, you will see that the SD in dollars is actually 19.28 * $100 = $1,928 vs. 45.95 * $27 = $1,241. The actual bankroll swings will be smaller using the bigger spread. And, perhaps more importantly, the long-term risk (RoR) is smaller using the bigger spread. Let's look at those results more closely. From your spreadsheet it looks like you have the following bet spreads:

Player A (1:4)
<+2 = $100
+2 = $200
>+2 = $400

Hourly EV = 0.4156 units ($41.56)
Hourly SD = 19.28 units ($1928)
RoR = 33% (All RoRs assume a $50,000 bankroll)

Player B (1:8)
<+2 = $50
+2 = $100
+3 = $200
+4 = $300
>+4= $400

Hourly EV = 1.0546 units ($52.73)
Hourly SD = 27.97 units ($1399)
RoR = 7%

Player C (1:10)
<+2 = $40
+2 = $80
+3 = $160
+4 = $320
>+4 = $400

Hourly EV = 1.406 units ($56.24)
Hourly SD = 33.94 units ($1358)
RoR = 5%

Player D (1:15)
<+2 = $27
+2 = $54
+3 = 135
+4 = $270
>+4 = $405

Hourly EV = 2.221 units ($59.96)
Hourly SD = 45.95 units ($1241)
RoR = 2%

As StandardDeviant pointed out, the variance with the bigger spread is smaller because of the lower average bet. Also, the advantage is higher because the bets in negative situations are smaller. As you increase your spread, your EV increases, your SD (in terms of $$$) decreases and your RoR decreases. It’s a win/win/win situation.

Look how Player A has a RoR of 33%, but by doubling his spread he can reduce it to only 7%! That's a huge difference for almost no additional effort or heat. You'll notice that the RoRs start to decrease less as the spread increases, which is an indication of how dangerous it is to use very small spreads. Once you reach a moderate spread, you start to see diminishing returns as your spreads get wilder.

Still, none of these games are particularly attractive. Many card counters look for a minimum SCORE of 50 to make an opportunity worthwhile.

-Sonny-

Ahhh! How embarassing, I thought the SD number was the absolute index number to define how much variance you will see. I didn't realize it was a number that is multiplied with the bet unit. Now I can get those damn RoR calculators to work right! Muchas Gracias senor Sonny and senor Deviante!