Aggresive surrendering

D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
I think it would help your variance and be a better move in the risk aversion department to surrender more often when in doubt. To make the wrong decision and not surrender should prove more harmful than to surrender when it is not called for I would think off the top of my head.

We always surrender when we have neg EV so is it not smarter to err on the side that gives you half your money back?

Maybe not though because if you surrender exactly when it is a toss up to surrender or not, in theory, at those times you would win all your bet half the time if you made the right hit/stay call. It helps variance but not EV, right?

I know, get out the whip.:whip:
 
Technically, you are right. It's all in the "risk averse" theory. Similar to why we double 10 vs. 10 at a higher count if we have a large bet out. Because it improves the growth of our bankroll.
 
Dopple said:
If you surrender exactly when it is a toss up, in theory, at those times you would win all your bet half the time if you made the right hit/stay call.
Click to expand...

Actually, surrendering is a tossup at the point where you would win your whole bet 25% of the time, and lose 75% of the time.
 
Just because your current position is -EV doesn't mean you should surrender all those hands. Surrender gives you half your stake back, which is EV of -0.5.
Hence your current position must be lower than -0.5 to justify surrender by EV.

The point about risk aversion is, that a surrender move guarantees you the money to be half your stake. Playing a hand at that same negative EV either wins or loses, and carries variance. If your edge over surrender is small, say -0.49. By standing, you have an 1% advantage over your surrender option. Now if your bet size is large (because of spread) that it won't justify the bet of that size on an advantage of 1% (because by count you seized your bet at 1/8 kelly for an 10% advantage, and hence is an overbet on 1% advantage), it's better to take surrender.
 
Thanks Mango, I grasp all that but your elaboration on a couple of the finer points was both informative and interesting.

Really:)
 
This is one of the issues I am struggling with. I love my surrender.I feel like a Frenchman. I WANT this rule to be powerful- I WANT it to save my ass as often as possible. So when the index play gets up to where i should surrender my (15 vs ACE) (14 vs 10) but doesn't QUITE make it I have caught myself surrendering. The problem is a lot of good things can happen when you hit a 14. Recieving 2 big bets back is much preferred to getting .5 back.
 
Play whatever you like. But also think about hitting your 14vs10 is basic strategy, which will not rise much attention. But if you are in love with your index table, and you feel like a king surrendering your hand - you are only giving away that you actually know something - in addition to making a playing mistake.

Don't waste your knowledge on -EV. Better save those moves until the play is actual +EV.
 
BUZZARD said:
This is one of the issues I am struggling with. I love my surrender.I feel like a Frenchman. I WANT this rule to be powerful- I WANT it to save my ass as often as possible. So when the index play gets up to where i should surrender my (15 vs ACE) (14 vs 10) but doesn't QUITE make it I have caught myself surrendering. The problem is a lot of good things can happen when you hit a 14. Recieving 2 big bets back is much preferred to getting .5 back.
Click to expand...

As long as you have a big bet out, you can shmooze the surrender index just a bit.
 
I keep it pretty simple I guess. 15-surrender to 10-Ace
16-surrender to 9,10,Ace
17-surrender to Ace
8,8 surrender to Ace
When dealer hits soft 17:joker:
 
Something I've thought about. Since we define risk averse indices as maximizing CE, that's just maximizing EV - Variance * SomeMathStuff

Since the Variance of a surrender is 0, the RA surrender index is exactly equal to the EV maximizing surrender index, right??

Or, put another way, since the surrender has no variance, then the CE = EV.
 
assume_R said:
Something I've thought about. Since we define risk averse indices as maximizing CE, that's just maximizing EV - Variance * SomeMathStuff

Since the Variance of a surrender is 0, the RA surrender index is exactly equal to the EV maximizing surrender index, right??

Or, put another way, since the surrender has no variance, then the CE = EV.
Click to expand...

But compare to the variance of hitting or standing on the stiff vs. big card. Higher variance.
 
It really boils down to this. Surrender on the hands you're going to lose. Hit, stand, split or double the hands you're going to win! :joker:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top