BS to reduce variance

[Ploppy]

I play two to four times a year, for a few hours (maybe ten at the most). I know basic strategy and I can count (KO) quite well at my kitchen table and on my computer--but I have no interest in counting in real life because I will never, ever get anywhere near the long term and my main goal is to reduce variance. I don't think I'll ever Wong in or out of a game, because basically when I play I do it for entertainment and its not entertaining to stand around, not playing.

I will happily sacrifice EV in the long term for relative predictability in the short term. In fact, I'm perfectly happy playing a -EV game and, while it would be nice to come out ahead, I intend to lose money. Hence, the screen name.

So, esteemed group, here's the question. I know--from the Wizard of Odds--that BS provides the mathematically correct strategy for every situation for both (a) maximization of EV and (b) bankroll preservation IN THE LONG TERM. However, I wonder whether BS requires doubling in some situations where the player's advantage is very weak--making the move the absolutely correct one over the long term, but one that will increase variance in the short term. If my goal were simply (a) bankroll preservation in the SHORT TERM and (b) low variance, would it make sense to alter basic strategy in any situation. If so--would that include doubling for less than the amount of the initial bet in some situations?

Sincerely,
PLOPPY

[21forme]

Great screen name! While not a direct answer to your question, even if you are playing for entertainment value, since you know KO, I would suggest wonging out at the RCs described in the book. This will reduce your (negative) variance by not playing when the odds favor the house. It's easy enough to get up for bathroom breaks, cell phone calls, etc.

[Kaiser]

Dude, there are a *ton* of threads here about you. It's about time you showed up!

[EasyRhino]

Blackjack already has a standard deviation that's only slightly over 1. In other words, it's almost a 50/50 coin flip. You'll find few games in Vegas with lower variance (Baccarat and pai gow come to mind).

So once you put your money on the felt, all you could really due to reduce fluctuations would be to never double down, and never split. And I suppose you could surrender more hands than you're supposed to.

But this would really have a big impact on the house edge. I'm guessing a few percent increase. Definitely not recommended. You might as well go play a slot then.

If you're really uncomfortable with the variance, then I think 21forme has the right idea. Play less (wonging) and bet smaller.

[Canceler]

Originally Posted by 21forme

Great screen name!

I disagree. The hope is that such names will quickly not fit anymore. Then you're stuck. Or else you change it, and nobody knows who you are. Same with names with "newbie" in them. One example is somebody named PROGRESSIONIST, who was still catching flak about his name long after he learned KISS III.

Just my unsolicited 2 cents. Y'all can get back to having a good time now.

[ChefJJ]

Ploppy,

Regardless of your name, you sound like an informed gambler who is out for entertainment while cutting down on the house edge. I personally think the term "ploppy" is pretty lame (look at who thought it up), but you are not that.

In my opinion, given the questions you have asked, I would think that you could make these variations from BS if they make you uncomfortable. Sure, not the best plays with regard to the long term, but they may be a bit less stressful:

--Don't split 8s against faces & aces (or even 9s if you don't like that).
--Just hit most soft hands instead of doubling except vs. 5 or 6.
--Only split low pairs when you want to, especially vs. 5 or 6.

Still though, double the 10s & 11s according to BS. Those are usually quality money makers. I'd really recommend playing all BS moves unless you just feel really bad in some cases (like 8s vs. 10), it shouldn't expose you too bad if flat betting.

And if you can count with a simple system like KO, maybe just use it for index play variations...you can still flat bet or have a two-bet system if the count really gets up there. I know it's not optimal, but do what works for you without straying too far.

good luck

[Sonny]

Howdy Ploppy!

Originally Posted by Ploppy

I know--from the Wizard of Odds--that BS provides the mathematically correct strategy for every situation for both (a) maximization of EV and (b) bankroll preservation IN THE LONG TERM.

Actually, BS is only concerned with maximizing EV. It doesn’t deal with bankroll preservation or risk at all. It’s only purpose is to give you the biggest advantage (or smallest disadvantage) possible. Your betting strategy is what controls the risk and bankroll preservation. Which brings us to your next question…

Originally Posted by Ploppy

However, I wonder whether BS requires doubling in some situations where the player's advantage is very weak--making the move the absolutely correct one over the long term, but one that will increase variance in the short term.

Yes it does. There are several plays (like some of the soft doubles) that increase your variance to gain a very small edge.

Originally Posted by Ploppy

If my goal were simply (a) bankroll preservation in the SHORT TERM and (b) low variance, would it make sense to alter basic strategy in any situation.

The problem is that you can’t have both. If you give up some of the high variance plays then you will be sacrificing your advantage, which is bad for bankroll preservation. If you add some higher risk plays in order to increase your advantage you will end up with higher risk.

Here’s a little example: The strategy with the least variance is to never split or double down. Your losses will always be limited to 1 bet per hand as opposed to the usual 1.16 bets per hand. However, you’re going to lose a lot more money very quickly. Your variance is at it’s absolute lowest but you are giving up much more money because you are playing so poorly. You are throwing away money in order to save money!

As I mentioned before, your betting strategy is what controls your risk. If you want smaller fluctuations then make smaller bets. Sticking to BS will assure that your sessions aren’t too expensive (from an EV perspective) and your smaller bets will make your bankroll last longer.

-Sonny-

[bj2007]

Ploppy:
Here's a list of some hands where you could break away from basic strategy.
These would help decrease variance a bit and wouldn't cost you too much.
Sometimes, depending on the count, they might even be the correct plays!
(6D,H17)

Hit instead of Double:
9 vs 3,4
10 vs 9
11 vs A
A2 vs 5,6
A3 vs 5
A4 vs 4
A5 vs 4
Stand instead of Double:
A7 vs 2,3
A8 vs 6
Hit instead of Split:
22 vs2
33 vs 2,3
44 vs 5
66 vs 2
99 vs 2
Surrender instead of Hit:
14 vs 10,A
15 vs 9
16 vs 8

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by 21forme

Great screen name! While not a direct answer to your question, even if you are playing for entertainment value, since you know KO, I would suggest wonging out at the RCs described in the book. This will reduce your (negative) variance by not playing when the odds favor the house. It's easy enough to get up for bathroom breaks, cell phone calls, etc.

more importantly, you will be playing less hands, while still sitting at the table counting (everybody seems to think wonging involves standing behind the table, sitting down, then leaving when the count goes low.. you can sit there and go in/out/in/out as if your having sex!)

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

Blackjack already has a standard deviation that's only slightly over 1. In other words, it's almost a 50/50 coin flip. You'll find few games in Vegas with lower variance (Baccarat and pai gow come to mind).

So once you put your money on the felt, all you could really due to reduce fluctuations would be to never double down, and never split. And I suppose you could surrender more hands than you're supposed to.

But this would really have a big impact on the house edge. I'm guessing a few percent increase. Definitely not recommended. You might as well go play a slot then.

If you're really uncomfortable with the variance, then I think 21forme has the right idea. Play less (wonging) and bet smaller.

actually, that is false about the variance thing.. variance doesnt have to do with win/loss but rather what is expected.. a -99% edge could have low variance while a +1% edge could have high variance.. i know jacks+ vp has a lower variance than blackjack (in jacks+ vp you slowly lose and then win a little, whereas bj is violent ups/downs).. i will be the first to admit i dont know calculations for variance/volatility/sd and all that, but i do know what it is, it refers to the ups and downs AROUND THE EXPECTED EV, for instance if your expected to win $100/hr and 99% of the time you go between $98 and $102, the would be an insanely low variance.. the thing you said about the coin flip actually means it will have high variance, and i could be wrong, but i believe a coin has the highest variance of anything due to the 50/50 chance

[Ploppy]

Thanks to all who responded.