Risk index betting

[blackchipjim]

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

[shadroch]

I'm not sure what it is you are talking about. Could you post a link? Thanks.

[Sonny]

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]

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).

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Sonny

Risk averse indices are an easy way to put a little extra edge in your game.

He said RISK AVERSE BETTING, not play-indices. zg

[EasyRhino]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

He said RISK AVERSE BETTING, not play-indices. zg

Oh.

What is that?

[jack,jackson]

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.

[EasyRhino]

Aw geeze, but didn't floating advantage really only become an issue once you get to below one deck left?

[jack,jackson]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

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

[shadroch]

Sounds to me like something that might disrupt The Sacred Flow of The Cards.
Use at your own risk.