advise about RA

[enjoy.b]

Which RA indices should I learn , i`m using Mentor with 48 indices so far, are worth to learn???
thanks for any advise

 

[moo321]

Off the top of my head...

10 v 10
9 v 7
xx v 4-6
8 v 3-6
a8 v 3-6
a9 v 5-6

 

[SleightOfHand]

I believe it was stated in BJA that 75% of the value of RA indeces is captured in 10v10

 

[jack.jackson]

Which RA indices should I learn , i`m using Mentor with 48 indices so far, are worth to learn???
thanks for any advise

48 indices are enough. I think Qfit, has something like the Big 63 or something.

The Illustrious 18, would be the most important ones to learn.

 

[moo321]

I believe it was stated in BJA that 75% of the value of RA indeces is captured in 10v10

I guess if you're going to memorize indeces, you might as well learn the risk averse ones.

The other thing to know, however, is that it depends on bet size. If I have a min bet out and the count jumps to +5, I'm doubling 10 v. 10. If I have two max bets out and have an eleven to double behind the ten, I'll probably wait for +7.

 

[FLASH1296]

Before you consider the issue of "Risk Aversion" you need to address the basic issue of what indices you need to learn.

R.A. is important if your bankroll is such that your R.O.R. is uncomfortably high.

Theory of Blackjack, 6th ed. contains two charts which gives you the EXACT value of every possible Basic Strategy Violation Index.

One chart for Single Deck and one for Shoe Games.

Of course, far and away the most valuable indices are Insurance and 16 vs. 10

If you ignore most of the index numbers for Splits and Doubles you will be on the right track. The Hit / Stand indices for commonly held hands are the most important.

As far as Risk Averse Indices are concerned yes, 10 vs. 10 is the only extremely important one. A6 vs. 2 is also quite important.

 

[SleightOfHand]

R.A. is important if your bankroll is such that your R.O.R. is uncomfortably high.

As to this portion of your response, isn't it always desireable to have a lower RoR? From my understanding, RA indeces (at least as given in BJA) actually increase your SCORE. Its just a matter of choosing between WR and SCORE.

 

[jack.jackson]

As to this portion of your response, isn't it always desireable to have a lower RoR? From my understanding, RA indeces (at least as given in BJA) actually increase your SCORE. Its just a matter of choosing between WR and SCORE.

So is it safe to assume RA indices increase SCORE, but lower WR, while maximum EV indices lower SCORE, but increase WR?

 

[FLASH1296]

If you play with R A Indices you will earn slightly less money.
The tradeoff is the degree of risk you have accepted.

 

[enjoy.b]

response

If you play with R A Indices you will earn slightly less money.
The tradeoff is the degree of risk you have accepted.

I`m very conservative, Kelly 0.4 ROR 0.5%
Thanks all for you comments

 

[QFIT]

If you play with R A Indices you will earn slightly less money.
The tradeoff is the degree of risk you have accepted.

If you use RA indexes, you can increase your bet, thereby increasing win rate with the same risk. So, you can earn more, not less when using optimal betting.

 

[rukus]

If you play with R A Indices you will earn slightly less money.
The tradeoff is the degree of risk you have accepted.

FALSE! FALSE! FALSE!

RA indices increase your overall advantage, thereby letting you bet more of your BR for a given TC. therefore, a compounding effect occurs... bigger advantage*bigger bet = bigger earnings.

EDIT:
ha, guess i was late to the party, Norm beat me to it.

 

[enjoy.b]

QFIT Question

If you use RA indexes, you can increase your bet, thereby increasing win rate with the same risk. So, you can earn more, not less when using optimal betting.

Any recomendaton about wich ones to use??

 

[moo321]

Any recomendaton about wich ones to use??

I listed some earlier. I believe "Blackjack Attack" has a section on this.

 

[FLASH1296]

As you are using Mentor, your only choice is to compute your own R.A. Indices with CVdata, after correcting for the unusual T.C. by 2 deck sprotocol.

Another idea. Ask Fred Renzey

The chapter entitled "Catch - 22" in Blackjack Attack, 3rd ed. is applicable only to Hi-Lo.

 

[SleightOfHand]

I think I remember someone posting this in another thread but I couldn't find it. When generating some RA indeces for my game, I noticed that it said to NOT split 8,8 v X (in which case I would surrender unless the count is sufficiently negative). All the other indeces match up with my normal game. Could this be right?

 

[FLASH1296]

Approximately correct

8's vs. TEN should not be split with a Hi-Opt II or Zen T.C. of +12 or a Hi-Lo T.C. of + 8

Ace's vs. Ace should not be split with a sufficiently negative true count.

For a Level Two T C it is about -8. For a level One T.C. it is about -5

(more negative if ReSplit Aces are permitted)

These indices are all slightly off.

 

[rukus]

I think I remember someone posting this in another thread but I couldn't find it. When generating some RA indeces for my game, I noticed that it said to NOT split 8,8 v X (in which case I would surrender unless the count is sufficiently negative). All the other indeces match up with my normal game. Could this be right?

Yup, I have had that problem (it was probably my posts you saw ) for years. Don't think I have been able to get that index to generate properly in RA. I think I finally just gave up and went with ev max indices. I can't believe the proper RA decision is to ALWAYS not split.

However, for some reason I do recall getting it to work once (but not consistently). Try generating that index by itself first. See if that works. If not, try all other indices first then generate 88 v X by itself afterwards. That might do the trick, might not.

Ideally Norm can chime in here.

Rukus