Does EV ever Trump Game Quality?
- Thread starter blackjack avenger
- Start date
aslan said:
That is how I have always understood it, so I'm happy to confirm that nothing is in dispute. I don't know why I thought you were saying something different. 
Trying to have a meaningful and lengthy discussion over the internet sometimes DOES have it's drawbacks.....
iCountNTrack said:
You still thinking in terms of TBA? You need to reread my post . WIN RATE, WIN RATE.
But as far as variance again it all depends on the penetration (true count frequencies) and bet spread. But if you are looking at the same win rate, the variance will be the same.
. WIN RATE, WIN RATE. But as far as variance again it all depends on the penetration (true count frequencies) and bet spread. But if you are looking at the same win rate, the variance will be the same.
But, for the purposes of what I presume you were responding to when you said that variance is not directly tied to number of decks, that discussion included TBA. It came up early that expected EV may be a better method for comparing games than NO, SCORE or DI, but I countered with the example of the DD vs. the 8 deck, which can be said in other words as the following:
Assume that we play strategies at each of the games such that our expected win-rate would be the same at each the DD game and 8-deck game. It is all but certain that more variance will be found in the 8-deck game, despite the win-rates being the same.
And this is because of the two things you just mentioned. Namely, the TC frequencies are lower in the 8-deck game and we probably need a larger spread for the 8-deck game.
Therefore, although the win-rate is the same in each game, the DD game is more desirable because of the lower variance, and thus higher SCORE.
SP
Yes because you are interested in your hourly RETURN not your percent EV.
Return=Action*EV(in%) so it is possible that there not enough action i.e bets because the opportunities don't show up as frequently. making the return smaller even though the % EV is higher.
As a simple example , if you are backcounting and only wong-in at TC of +6 (hi-lo) and higher, the EV would be +4.719%, if you wong in at TC +2 your EV is 2.688%, however your win rate would be higher for TC=+2 because the hourly action for wonging in at +6 would be much smaller since true counts of +6 and higher are not too frequent.
Return=Action*EV(in%) so it is possible that there not enough action i.e bets because the opportunities don't show up as frequently. making the return smaller even though the % EV is higher.
As a simple example , if you are backcounting and only wong-in at TC of +6 (hi-lo) and higher, the EV would be +4.719%, if you wong in at TC +2 your EV is 2.688%, however your win rate would be higher for TC=+2 because the hourly action for wonging in at +6 would be much smaller since true counts of +6 and higher are not too frequent.
I Agree 100% But
I agree with the above
but
I have compared 1 ev vs ra indice at a time and you do find the ev indice makes more raw ev but the ra indice raises SCORE. It can't be anything else, it's probably when you look at the total sets of indices that their weight increases because of being able to bet more due to lower overall variance.
:joker::whip:
good cards
I agree with the above
but
I have compared 1 ev vs ra indice at a time and you do find the ev indice makes more raw ev but the ra indice raises SCORE. It can't be anything else, it's probably when you look at the total sets of indices that their weight increases because of being able to bet more due to lower overall variance.
:joker::whip:
good cards
Let's Reign it in!
2 players
one bets .5 kelly resizing
one bets .25 kelly resizing
They both bet optimally. They are both at table max bets with their top bet. Let's assume they continue to win. If they raise stakes they are making their top bets sooner which would lower SCORE, DI and raise NO. Though they would keep the same ror and raise ev.
Now, it was stated earlier and I agree that with an infinite bank one would bet table max at any advantage. These are not infinite banks.
Is the .5 kelly player safe enough from ror? Should he lower SCORE chasing ev? What about the .25 kelly player, is he safe enough?
In brief:
How does one bet the very large and growing bank? I think kelly theory would be to keep betting larger even at the cost of SCORE, DI & NO.
:joker::whip:
good cards
2 players
one bets .5 kelly resizing
one bets .25 kelly resizing
They both bet optimally. They are both at table max bets with their top bet. Let's assume they continue to win. If they raise stakes they are making their top bets sooner which would lower SCORE, DI and raise NO. Though they would keep the same ror and raise ev.
Now, it was stated earlier and I agree that with an infinite bank one would bet table max at any advantage. These are not infinite banks.
Is the .5 kelly player safe enough from ror? Should he lower SCORE chasing ev? What about the .25 kelly player, is he safe enough?
In brief:
How does one bet the very large and growing bank? I think kelly theory would be to keep betting larger even at the cost of SCORE, DI & NO.
:joker::whip:
good cards
Not really, sorry if this has already been explained...
Indices are calculated in terms of win rates, not advantages. So let's say you have 10 vs. 10, with $200 down. Hitting the 10 might have a cash return of $5.00. Doubling the 10 might have a cash return of $6.00. So yes, you will make more money doubling, but betting an additional $200 is not worth it for an expected additional $1. Just like betting an initial $200 is not worth it for an initial expected win of $1. If you got $50.00 for hitting and $60.00 for doubling, sure I'll put $200 at risk for $10.
Especially devious on doubles like 10 vs. 10 is that they actually decrease your chance of winning the hand, because if you get stiffed you don't get to take another card. Soft doubles are an issue too because they have very small slopes and sometimes the profitability doesn't go up as fast as your betting ramp does.
Indices are calculated in terms of win rates, not advantages. So let's say you have 10 vs. 10, with $200 down. Hitting the 10 might have a cash return of $5.00. Doubling the 10 might have a cash return of $6.00. So yes, you will make more money doubling, but betting an additional $200 is not worth it for an expected additional $1. Just like betting an initial $200 is not worth it for an initial expected win of $1. If you got $50.00 for hitting and $60.00 for doubling, sure I'll put $200 at risk for $10.
Especially devious on doubles like 10 vs. 10 is that they actually decrease your chance of winning the hand, because if you get stiffed you don't get to take another card. Soft doubles are an issue too because they have very small slopes and sometimes the profitability doesn't go up as fast as your betting ramp does.
For some that are reading this thread and just aren't getting the idea of how SCORE is different than win-rate here is a good illustrative simulation.
We'll have two players, each spreads 1-20, but our overbettor spreads likes this:
TC = 1 or less: Bet 1 unit
TC = 2+: Bet 20 units
Our semi-optimal player spreads like this:
TC = 0 or less: Bet 1 unit
TC = 1: Bet 2 units
TC = 2: Bet 5 units
TC = 3: Bet 10 units
TC = 4: Bet 15 units
TC = 5: Bet 20 units
The game will be:
8D, DAS, S17, NS, 1.5 decks cut off, DOA2, nRSPA, SP to 4, Head-on
Hi-Lo, I18, Full-Deck Resolution, Truncating
Here are the stats:
Overbettor:
Win-Rate: 4.02 units per 100 rounds
SCORE: $19.83 per 100 rounds
S.d. = 90.34 units per 100 rounds
Semi-Optimal Bettor
Win-Rate: 2.50 units per 100 rounds
SCORE: $21.31 per 100 rounds
S.d. = 54.15 units per 100 rounds
As you can see, the overbettor's win-rate is way higher than that of the semi-optimal bettor, yet the SCORE of the semi-optimal bettor is higher than that of the overbettor. Because SCORE makes each player play with a 10k bankroll at 13.53% RoR, our overbettor is forced to use small units so that his RoR remains at 13.53%. On the other hand, our semi-optimal bettor is allowed to use bigger units (because his S.d. is lower), so even though he earns less units per hour, he still makes more money.
SP
We'll have two players, each spreads 1-20, but our overbettor spreads likes this:
TC = 1 or less: Bet 1 unit
TC = 2+: Bet 20 units
Our semi-optimal player spreads like this:
TC = 0 or less: Bet 1 unit
TC = 1: Bet 2 units
TC = 2: Bet 5 units
TC = 3: Bet 10 units
TC = 4: Bet 15 units
TC = 5: Bet 20 units
The game will be:
8D, DAS, S17, NS, 1.5 decks cut off, DOA2, nRSPA, SP to 4, Head-on
Hi-Lo, I18, Full-Deck Resolution, Truncating
Here are the stats:
Overbettor:
Win-Rate: 4.02 units per 100 rounds
SCORE: $19.83 per 100 rounds
S.d. = 90.34 units per 100 rounds
Semi-Optimal Bettor
Win-Rate: 2.50 units per 100 rounds
SCORE: $21.31 per 100 rounds
S.d. = 54.15 units per 100 rounds
As you can see, the overbettor's win-rate is way higher than that of the semi-optimal bettor, yet the SCORE of the semi-optimal bettor is higher than that of the overbettor. Because SCORE makes each player play with a 10k bankroll at 13.53% RoR, our overbettor is forced to use small units so that his RoR remains at 13.53%. On the other hand, our semi-optimal bettor is allowed to use bigger units (because his S.d. is lower), so even though he earns less units per hour, he still makes more money.
SP
I'm beginning to think that this whole sidetrack issue is an exercise in futility, and I'm ALSO growing weary of it, but I'll try to clarify myself one more time:
Yes, it HAS been explained. But my statement was misinterpreted. And I'll be the first to admit that I did a poor job of explaining myself.
Of COURSE you would not want to put out another $200 unless your bankroll was such that you could put up $200 for an extra $1.
Here is what I REALLY said:
If you note the bolded out part, you'll see that I'm saying that the double down has to GAIN 2.5%, or $5 on a $200 bet. Not $1, not 20 cents - FIVE DOLLARS. This is why I'm saying that we're probably pretty much all in agreement on this WHOLE thing, but we just don't KNOW it.
Now, out of respect for the OP; can we get this thread back to the original question? I've given him MY opinion, but I'm sure he'd like to hear from the rest of us.
Yes, it HAS been explained. But my statement was misinterpreted. And I'll be the first to admit that I did a poor job of explaining myself.
Of COURSE you would not want to put out another $200 unless your bankroll was such that you could put up $200 for an extra $1.
Here is what I REALLY said:
If you note the bolded out part, you'll see that I'm saying that the double down has to GAIN 2.5%, or $5 on a $200 bet. Not $1, not 20 cents - FIVE DOLLARS. This is why I'm saying that we're probably pretty much all in agreement on this WHOLE thing, but we just don't KNOW it.
Now, out of respect for the OP; can we get this thread back to the original question? I've given him MY opinion, but I'm sure he'd like to hear from the rest of us.
