First approximation, yes it should be played just like regular BJ. However in terms of risk-aversiveness, a CC might want to alter his strategy a bit. Let's see if I can find the words to illustrate the picture in my mind:
Suppose you have three bets down, and the count is such that hit or stand 16 vs. 10 is would be a dead-even choice in a regular BJ game.
Now in MA BJ, if you hit or stand you will have the same results over an infinite number of trials, however if you hit the 16 chances are you will lose all three bets on that hand. If you stand on 16, your advantage will be the same but there will be fewer times when you lose (or win) all three bets. So the option of standing has the effect of evening out your swings. Being "evening out swings" is the same as "added win rate or lower RoR" to a Kelly-aware player, it would make sense to apply "ploppy intuition" and slightly bias your play towards an outcome that avoids busting your hand. At the times when 16 vs. 10 is a tough decision we usually still have a minimum bet down, but when 15 vs. 10 or 16 vs. 9 is a close decision we usually have a max bet down! These plays (as well as 12 vs. 2 and 12 vs. 3) are the ones where it might pay off to recalculate playing indices for hit/stand decisions to make them more bankroll-sensitive.
Last edited by Automatic Monkey; August 15th, 2006 at 05:14 PM.
|
English
Français
Linear Mode
