I was not talking about turning bad shoes into good. I was talking about damage control. Turning a max bet loser or 2 into winners has a huge affect on that shoes bottom line. Those are your big downswings being made into smaller downswings. You might still have the nightmare but it is easier to go back to sleep.
Long term profit is seeing the big picture
- Thread starter tthree
- Start date
I never thought about insuring good hands and blackjacks at a small disadvantage to reduce variance. I thought of only doing it as camoflauge so when I do it on big bets it looks less conspicuous.
Which hands do you feel are worth insuring at a disadvantage:
20, 19, 11, and/or 10????
And at how much of a disadvantage???
What other top plays that you know of that reduce a great amount of variance with little EV loss?
EDIT: I just found this useful thread - http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11175&highlight=variance+reducing+plays
Which hands do you feel are worth insuring at a disadvantage:
20, 19, 11, and/or 10????
And at how much of a disadvantage???
What other top plays that you know of that reduce a great amount of variance with little EV loss?
EDIT: I just found this useful thread - http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=11175&highlight=variance+reducing+plays
Last edited:
I usually stick to blackjack and 20. The others are good starts but lose to often. Variance is reduced because you usually win one bet or the other. When the chance of losing both gets to high the variance reducing affect quickly disappears.
Blackjacks I insure all but my base bets. I go to 1 TC below the index on 20. If your goal is cover you probably want to be more generous.
Look at the zero point cards for your count. Hand matchups where they are the key card(s) will have a small increase in EV as the index is exceeded. This is because your count is a poor indicator of the deck compositions affect on the hand matchup. By giving up the index play until an advantage threshold is reached it doesn't cost much and decreases variance a lot. This is especially true if it is a doubling or splitting index as the money you put at risk for a small gain in EV is doubled.
Blackjacks I insure all but my base bets. I go to 1 TC below the index on 20. If your goal is cover you probably want to be more generous.
Look at the zero point cards for your count. Hand matchups where they are the key card(s) will have a small increase in EV as the index is exceeded. This is because your count is a poor indicator of the deck compositions affect on the hand matchup. By giving up the index play until an advantage threshold is reached it doesn't cost much and decreases variance a lot. This is especially true if it is a doubling or splitting index as the money you put at risk for a small gain in EV is doubled.
Combinatorial analysis is a simple algorithm that is able to calculate exact expectation values, essentially by calculating all possible outcomes.
Much like you would calculate the probability of throwing a sum of 12 with 3 dices, you would write down all combinations, and weight them with their corresponding probability.
Much like you would calculate the probability of throwing a sum of 12 with 3 dices, you would write down all combinations, and weight them with their corresponding probability.
What makes you think a stronger count will allow you to do that once or twice in a shoe? The "right" (made with more information) play will sometimes result in a loss while the "wrong" one will result in a win. Look at all the times we see a ploppy clean out a rack while we are getting killed. The superiority of the decisions we make with exceptionally strong counts versus ordinary counts like High-Low is so small we can expect to turn a winner into a loser maybe once a week, not once a shoe. The difference is so subtle we can't perceive it, even though we swear we can.
Okay, here is some actual output from a simulation:
Spread 1
Spread = 1:5
Win Rate = $30 / hour
Std = $490 / hour
SCORE = 54
N0 = 18,000
RoR = 17%
Spread 2
Spread = 1:10
Win Rate = $49 / hour
Std = $710 / hour
SCORE = 71
N0 = 14,000
RoR = 25%
Now, normally I would go with Spread 1 because of the significantly lower RoR. You would suggest I would go with Spread 2? Wouldn't you be worried that there's a higher chance of going bust?
Spread 1
Spread = 1:5
Win Rate = $30 / hour
Std = $490 / hour
SCORE = 54
N0 = 18,000
RoR = 17%
Spread 2
Spread = 1:10
Win Rate = $49 / hour
Std = $710 / hour
SCORE = 71
N0 = 14,000
RoR = 25%
Now, normally I would go with Spread 1 because of the significantly lower RoR. You would suggest I would go with Spread 2? Wouldn't you be worried that there's a higher chance of going bust?
You are forgetting adding the block side count and using the fact that you are using it to bet more when it will allow a better decision on your stiffs. Like I said I am not simply calling a stronger count as a higher level versus a lower level but your side counts and playing adjustments as well. While weak info can often result in a less accurate decision resulting in a win, I am not going to start playing basic strategy rather than counting. We are talking about long term profits and the big picture. I just know how often I see it make a difference. Usually when things are going really bad at a high count the dealer is getting seven thru ace up cards and we are playing stiffs. Choosing a game with late surrender and the information on your main counts zero point cards vastly improves your decisions in many of these situations. Not to mention that the surplus or deficit of these cards tell you the exact deck composition not just the ratio of high to low cards.
Since you mention HILO many hand match ups the ace acts as a low card but is reflected in the count as a high card. This results in bad decisions that lowers your win percentage for the hand match up especially if the high count is due to a lot of surplus aces rather than surplus tens. You want to not only get the big bets out at the right time but win the highest percentage of big bets you can. An ace side count would flag the strength or weakness of your indices in those hand match ups and adjust your TC accordingly for the decision.
I don't know why anyone would be satisfied with simply getting the big bets out at the right time. You should demand of yourself that you win the highest percentage of the big bets that you can. This is simple common sense. The people I hear arguing otherwise just don't want to put in the effort and give back twice their max bet or more if the decision is doubling or splitting for each win subtracted to the ratio of wins to total bets made for each situation. Wouldn't you want to add those wins. Some people might not be skilled enough to do this but practice makes you develop skills. You can burn the best games by trying to increase your bets/spread beyond casino tolerance or you can bring your strongest complete counting (not just your basic count) game to the casino and play within their tolerance. Then you won't be one of those whining about not being able to play any great games. You will be playing them.
Since you mention HILO many hand match ups the ace acts as a low card but is reflected in the count as a high card. This results in bad decisions that lowers your win percentage for the hand match up especially if the high count is due to a lot of surplus aces rather than surplus tens. You want to not only get the big bets out at the right time but win the highest percentage of big bets you can. An ace side count would flag the strength or weakness of your indices in those hand match ups and adjust your TC accordingly for the decision.
I don't know why anyone would be satisfied with simply getting the big bets out at the right time. You should demand of yourself that you win the highest percentage of the big bets that you can. This is simple common sense. The people I hear arguing otherwise just don't want to put in the effort and give back twice their max bet or more if the decision is doubling or splitting for each win subtracted to the ratio of wins to total bets made for each situation. Wouldn't you want to add those wins. Some people might not be skilled enough to do this but practice makes you develop skills. You can burn the best games by trying to increase your bets/spread beyond casino tolerance or you can bring your strongest complete counting (not just your basic count) game to the casino and play within their tolerance. Then you won't be one of those whining about not being able to play any great games. You will be playing them.
Last edited:
Okay, agreed, but I was pointing out that to keep my RoR to a reasonable level I have to lower my spread.
So here's another example of 2 choices:
Spread 1:
1x1 to 2x3 units
RoR = 9%
SCORE = 27
N0 = 37,000
Spread 2:
1x1 to 2x7 units
RoR = 25%
SCORE = 35
N0 = 28,000
These are pretty crappy conditions, but my point is that I want to keep my RoR under 10%. But to do that, given the table minimums, I can't spread as high as I'd like. Given the spread I'd want at this game, it would bring my RoR way too high.
So here's another example of 2 choices:
Spread 1:
1x1 to 2x3 units
RoR = 9%
SCORE = 27
N0 = 37,000
Spread 2:
1x1 to 2x7 units
RoR = 25%
SCORE = 35
N0 = 28,000
These are pretty crappy conditions, but my point is that I want to keep my RoR under 10%. But to do that, given the table minimums, I can't spread as high as I'd like. Given the spread I'd want at this game, it would bring my RoR way too high.
Do you really think Assume_R, math genius (respect not sarcasm), is not going to know the big picture of RoR, win rate, SCORE, N0 etc and try to balance them for his best game. He is trying to find the optimal spread/top bet etc for his big picture, not be confused by focusing to much on any one part of the big picture. The big picture is more than just the math. It must include the constraints on the game imposed by the casino's tolerance levels and your bankroll and how good a game you find yourself having at your disposal. He, as well as most if not all here, has room to learn and improve but real world improvement goes beyond the straight math of the game. What good is playing with a slightly bigger edge on paper when the only games it will allow you to have at your disposal take more than that back or have undesirable variance levels (RoR) when you combine the larger spread/top bet with the crappier rules.
I'm not sure I'm following, avenger. With the spread and N0 I'd like, how can I make the RoR the same? The table minimums don't go much lower. And this is with wonging out. My bankroll is way too limited at this point in my life, I do realize that.
Edit: Just so you know, I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to minimize your knowledge. I honestly do want the <10% RoR with the low N0. I'm seriously asking you how do I achieve it.
Edit: Just so you know, I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to minimize your knowledge. I honestly do want the <10% RoR with the low N0. I'm seriously asking you how do I achieve it.
Last edited:
So you're saying instead of betting optimally (which may be to put a max bet out at +4), perhaps wait until +6 to put that max bet out if it keeps the RoR the same?
So for example a given RoR of 10% might have:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x5, ...
as the optimal betting, and to keep that 10% RoR, it might be possible to do:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x5, 2x5, 2x7 or something?
whereas the "optimal" spread (minimal N0) might have a RoR of 20% with:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x7
So for example a given RoR of 10% might have:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x5, ...
as the optimal betting, and to keep that 10% RoR, it might be possible to do:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x5, 2x5, 2x7 or something?
whereas the "optimal" spread (minimal N0) might have a RoR of 20% with:
1x1, 2x1, 2x3, 2x5, 2x7
Last edited: