No Even Money!
- Thread starter assume_R
- Start date
Sucker said:
Taking even money is an extra payout??? Shot taking??? 
If you never take even money or insurance, you get either 0:1 (push) or 1.5:1 (full bj bonus)
If you always take even money or insurance, you always get 1:1
If you insure for less, you get somewhere between X:1 and Y:1 where X and Y are between 0 and 1.5. It's just a smaller range for Case 1. You can't possibly get more than 1.5:1 in this scenario.
Sucker said:
Taking even money is an extra payout??? Shot taking???
If you have a blackjack and the dealer is offering insurance. You can push an insurance bet out and then say even money on the blackjack. Get paid on the blackjack. And you still have your insurance bet riding and then get paid on the insurance bet if the dealer has a blackjack. It would have to be on a weak dealer of course.
Last edited:
Assume_R, it is a risk averse play. Insuring blackjack guarantees your bankroll grows on that hand. You can't lose the exchange without even money but even money guarantees a win. Giving a little adjustment to the index on a strong 20 is not costly and since the hand probably will win if the dealer doesn't have a blackjack you are unlikely to lose both bets. I move my TC index 1 or 2 less (level 2 count) . To a newbie the same for a level 1 count is a 1 or less lower of the TC index for insurance. Assume_R, I know you understand risk averse play. Sometimes the cost on the hand match up is actually a benefit for long term profit. The cost of always insuring or generously insuring a bad match up is huge. You will probably lose both bets. That increases negative variance a lot while insuring a good hand match up generously reduces variance while making profit more certain.
Last edited:
Got it, thanks guys. Is there a book that discusses how much the variance is reduced? Given the variance for different hands I can probably calculate exactly how much to reduce the index (on good hands) or increase the index (on bad hands) for optimal (exponential) bankroll growth. It's probably around your assumed +/-2 for L2 counts, but I wonder what it is for each different hand? The index adjustment would be different for 13vA, 16vA, 20vA, and BJvA etc., depending on how you'll play the hand at a given index and what the resulting EV and variance are.
hmm, so i guess the value of camo is much greater in the minds of pro's than semi-pro or non pro's.
but anyway, it seems more and more ploppies, or more and more players know basic strategy pretty good, especially good enough not to ever take even money as a non-counter. on the other hand, the less astute players may not even understand the insurance bet period, hence tend not to ever make it. just seems, lately, my experience has been insurance is rarely taken by anyone at the tables, so to some degree, in my mind it would seem draw to the pit's attention.
as an aside, errhh like for hi/lo, one takes insurance when the dealer has an ace up if tc >=3 ..... so does that mean we should take even money or even try sticking an insurance bet out there if we have a snapper and the dealer has ace up at tc>=3? but like Renzey was saying it sure could draw attention if you try and stick out the insurance bet.
if so, that would not be risk averse, right, for your bet or from the perspective of camo?
errhh rrwoods was saying our chance of getting bj is 1/21, so i guess that's true of the dealer as well, but what are the chances of two snappers showing up on the board at the same time?
but anyway, it seems more and more ploppies, or more and more players know basic strategy pretty good, especially good enough not to ever take even money as a non-counter. on the other hand, the less astute players may not even understand the insurance bet period, hence tend not to ever make it. just seems, lately, my experience has been insurance is rarely taken by anyone at the tables, so to some degree, in my mind it would seem draw to the pit's attention.
as an aside, errhh like for hi/lo, one takes insurance when the dealer has an ace up if tc >=3 ..... so does that mean we should take even money or even try sticking an insurance bet out there if we have a snapper and the dealer has ace up at tc>=3? but like Renzey was saying it sure could draw attention if you try and stick out the insurance bet.
if so, that would not be risk averse, right, for your bet or from the perspective of camo?
errhh rrwoods was saying our chance of getting bj is 1/21, so i guess that's true of the dealer as well, but what are the chances of two snappers showing up on the board at the same time?
Last edited:
Devil's advocate here: If an AP should be willing to take Even Money at an unqualifying count, how much less than Even Money should he settle for if less were offered? That is, how low would he go before he flat out balks and says to himself, "A bad play is a bad play"?
Next question: If risk aversion was the top concern, and a card counter implemented it at every "qualifying" opportunity by routinely eschewing an entire host of marginally correct doubles and splits, where would his EV and SCORE end up?
A basic strategic example might be to take Even Money and not double in the neutral zone with 9 vs 3, or 11 vs A (H17), or A/2 vs 5, or A/4 vs 4, or A/7 vs 2 (H17), or A/8 vs 6 (H17), and not split 3/3 vs 2, or 4/4 vs 5 -- and possibly a few less marginal others?????
Next question: If risk aversion was the top concern, and a card counter implemented it at every "qualifying" opportunity by routinely eschewing an entire host of marginally correct doubles and splits, where would his EV and SCORE end up?
A basic strategic example might be to take Even Money and not double in the neutral zone with 9 vs 3, or 11 vs A (H17), or A/2 vs 5, or A/4 vs 4, or A/7 vs 2 (H17), or A/8 vs 6 (H17), and not split 3/3 vs 2, or 4/4 vs 5 -- and possibly a few less marginal others?????
Last edited:
Unlike Assume_R I am guessing you do not understand risk averse play. I will try to explain.
To optimize profit you do 2 things. You make optimal sized bets based on kelly for maximum exponential bankroll growth for your current bankroll size. And you make decisions on each hand trying to maximize your EV. The outdated but proven way of playing had the hand play only consider maximizing that hand's EV. Sims show that the bet resizing required as risk is increased for a minimal gain in that hand's EV actually hurts your long term EV due to excessive variance. If you are maximizing long term profits by optimal betting the most profitable index is not the hand's EV maximizing index but a more conservative one for these kind of higher risk for minimal gain match ups. If your bankroll is smaller than it should be these modifications become even more important to decrease your variance and RoR. It is only when your bankroll is so large that the table limits prevent resizing of bets because you are betting well below kelly that risk averse play does not make you more money. Most that have that kind of bankroll (hundreds of thousands or millions) got there by using risk averse play and some form of kelly optimization of bet size for maximum bankroll growth so they do it anyway.
Like you say a bad play is a bad play and any play that decreases your long term EV is a bad play. Which is more important maximizing the return on your bets that are placed or maximizing your overall return by making decisions that have you placing larger bets sooner giving you a snowball effect for every hand match up in the future? This is an exponential increase in overall return. Not a very small increase in that hand's return.
To optimize profit you do 2 things. You make optimal sized bets based on kelly for maximum exponential bankroll growth for your current bankroll size. And you make decisions on each hand trying to maximize your EV. The outdated but proven way of playing had the hand play only consider maximizing that hand's EV. Sims show that the bet resizing required as risk is increased for a minimal gain in that hand's EV actually hurts your long term EV due to excessive variance. If you are maximizing long term profits by optimal betting the most profitable index is not the hand's EV maximizing index but a more conservative one for these kind of higher risk for minimal gain match ups. If your bankroll is smaller than it should be these modifications become even more important to decrease your variance and RoR. It is only when your bankroll is so large that the table limits prevent resizing of bets because you are betting well below kelly that risk averse play does not make you more money. Most that have that kind of bankroll (hundreds of thousands or millions) got there by using risk averse play and some form of kelly optimization of bet size for maximum bankroll growth so they do it anyway.
Like you say a bad play is a bad play and any play that decreases your long term EV is a bad play. Which is more important maximizing the return on your bets that are placed or maximizing your overall return by making decisions that have you placing larger bets sooner giving you a snowball effect for every hand match up in the future? This is an exponential increase in overall return. Not a very small increase in that hand's return.
