Risk index betting

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#1
I've been doing a little research in the risk adverse betting theory and find it a welcome addition to my game. Does anyone use this index in thier game or is it just a added feature to thier already good system. blackchipjim
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#3
Risk averse indices are an easy way to put a little extra edge in your game. They don’t take any extra effort and they can give you a slight boost. Every little bit helps.

-Sonny-
 

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#4
We're talking about less aggressive indices which trade off a little bit of EV for less risk of ruin, right?

Personally, while I'm uneducated on the details, I'm not overly enthusiastic of the idea. Its seems to be that if you're generally betting at a level which results in a risk of ruin you're comfortable with, then it's somewhat unnecessary. So it would be mainly of interest to those who are betting at the ragged edge of full Kelly betting. (or who know they're getting an ace, and bet 33% of their entire bankroll on it).
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#7
I think he means Betting Indices. If so, They help neutralize the effect of the "floating advantage". It has the same effect as if you were to use your TC in fractions, opposed to rounded.(especially for level1) But instead, "their" permanent #'s positioned at specific levels in the deck,to tell you when and how much to bet.
 

jack.jackson

Well-Known Member
#9
EasyRhino said:
Aw geeze, but didn't floating advantage really only become an issue once you get to below one deck left?
Well yeah, but their still are sublte differences with more than 1D remaining.

According to Bryce Carlson, and when using the Ao2 count, with a -.47 disadvantage you should start raising your bets as follows(6 deck game)

6decks remaining> TC 4.5 orRC +27
5decks remaining> TC 4.2 orRC +21
4decks remaining> TC 3.75 orRC +15
3decks remaining> TC 3.66 orRC +11
2decks remaining> TC 3.5 or RC+7
1deck remaining> TC 3 orRC +3
1/2D remaining> TC 2 orRC +1

This is a L2 count, so the discrepency between a level1 would be less. The numbers on the right are the betting indices.Of course theres also another set that goes with the first set. Then theres another, complete double set, for better rules.


So it takes a TC of 4.5 w/6d remaining to equal a TC of 3 w/1d remaining. If I started raising my bets @ TC+3 I would be overbetting up until a reached the point of 1d remaining, or if I waited until TC+4.5 to start raising my bets, I would be underbetting all the time.

Now im no expert, but, what exactly the definition of the floating advantage is, I'm not quite sure. Unless Im mistaken I believe its the reason why a single deck game with a zero HA, is equilevent to -.6 HA, while playing a 6D game, with the same rules.

In other words, you would think, I could start raising my bets @ +3 as long as the rules are the same, regardless of the # of decks in play. But of course this isnt the case, I have to wait until (TC 4.2(RC+21) with 5 decks remaining, before I get the edge.(Not TC+3(RC+15) as one might think) before I start raising my bets.

But if was a single deck game w/ -.47 HA, I could start raising my bets @TC+3
 

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#11
It's Blackjack Attack that has the section with more detail than you'd ever want about floating advantage, right?

jack said:
But if was a single deck game w/ -.47 HA, I could start raising my bets @TC+3
See here's the thing, If you start out with a 6D game and a certain set of rules (S17 etc), and then deal it down to 1D left, and the TC is exactly zero, you're suddenly not playing a 6D game with those rules, you'd playing a single deck game with that same set of rules, so the HA is actually lower. This means that for a lowish positive count (like TC +1), you could probably raise your bet more than you would in with several decks left.

However, if you sat down at a single deck game with/ .47 HA (like restrictive Reno rules, maybe), then you're still confronted with that actual HA, and so you'd still bet by the book, unless you got down to half deck, quarter deck, etc.
 

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#12
risk adverse index

In the bj attack book I'm trying to correalate the adverse numbers in my game. It is my understanding that the count numbers are adjusted to inherient risk. They are adjusted up a few numbers later in the shoe for a better value. I'm still studying the tables and numbers but they are interesting to say the least. We have numerous threads that certain members myself included that wonder why our butts get kicked at high counts. The tables suggest if I may imply that perhaps waiting until the count is say a +5 instead of +3 I can bet the level of +3 with no loss of value. I do hate to quote books because of the possibility of misquoting the authors intent so bear with me. blackchipjim
 
#14
blackchipjim said:
In the bj attack book I'm trying to correalate the adverse numbers in my game. It is my understanding that the count numbers are adjusted to inherient risk. They are adjusted up a few numbers later in the shoe for a better value. I'm still studying the tables and numbers but they are interesting to say the least. We have numerous threads that certain members myself included that wonder why our butts get kicked at high counts. The tables suggest if I may imply that perhaps waiting until the count is say a +5 instead of +3 I can bet the level of +3 with no loss of value. I do hate to quote books because of the possibility of misquoting the authors intent so bear with me. blackchipjim
Some index numbers are calculated as risk-averse, others aren't. It makes no sense at all to use non-risk averse numbers, for the same reason that it makes no sense to put out a maximum bet at +0.1% advantage.

In order to get true RA index numbers, you have to have some bankroll and risk-tolerance info. But the indices which have a high RA component are few, and they're these: DD 10 vs. 10 (the big one), DD 10 vs. A, DD 9 vs. 7 . Secondary to these are split 10's, DD on 8's, any soft doubles, and all surrender indices. RA surrender indices are different than RA double and split indices because to make them RA you want to start doing them at a lower count, not a higher one.
 

Kasi

Well-Known Member
#15
blackchipjim said:
In the bj attack book I'm trying to correalate the adverse numbers in my game. It is my understanding that the count numbers are adjusted to inherient risk. They are adjusted up a few numbers later in the shoe for a better value.
I don't think you can go wrong using the r-a indices like Sonny says. In fact using them properly to select your plays will maximize your SCORE (EV squared divided by variance).

Basically it adjusts EV versus the risk. A higher EV increases SCORE but a higher variance lowers it. So the index number involved will actually change depending on what your bet is as a percent of bankroll to determine the point at which a play is equal whether you choose to, say, double or hit.

So every play has a "Critical Fraction" of bankroll to maximize SCORE. If you're original bet scheme demands a bet bigger than this, you should make the risk-averse play.

And because you're no longer making plays that would actually lower SCORE you can bet more at other times increasing EV with the same risk or at least keeping EV the same with less risk and bankroll than otherwise.

It doesn't matter whether you are betting full-kelly or a fraction thereof. The Critical Fractions and optimal bets would be reduced proportionately and the index numbers would remain the same.

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with being earlier or later in the shoe.

I have no idea how this changes under varying # of decks with varying rules lol.
 
Top