Does EV ever Trump Game Quality?

[iCountNTrack]

iCnT,

Thank you for joining the conversation. Your views are always enlightening.

I agree that variance is not dependent on the number of decks. However, for all intents and purposes, considering the typical DD game and 8-deck game, if you are to play separate strategies on each of these games, each of which results in an equivalent percent-return (TBA), then it is almost certainly going to be the case that the variance associated with the DD game will be lower than that of the 8-deck game. This will hold true in all, but the most bizarre cases, that do not reflect the typical DD game and typical 8-deck game.

Best,

SP

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.

 

[Sucker]

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.

I'm starting to agree with this. I'm pretty sure that we're all in rather close agreement on almost all of these issues, but somehow our points keep getting misunderstood by each other. It's to the point where I feel like words are being put in my mouth.

Trying to have a meaningful and lengthy discussion over the internet sometimes DOES have it's drawbacks.....

 

[Southpaw]

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.

I think in terms of SCORE, rather than "expected" win rate!

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

 

[Southpaw]

Trying to have a meaningful and lengthy discussion over the internet sometimes DOES have it's drawbacks.....

Yes, agree very much so. It is very annoying at times. In fact, I think I'm about to exit this one.

Best,

SP

 

[iCountNTrack]

I think in terms of SCORE, rather than "expected" win rate!

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

If the games have the same win rate they will have the SAME SCORE!!!!, SCORE is just a standardized win rate!!

 

[Sucker]

Let's get back to the original question posed by the OP - is there anyone here who thinks that a BJ game with a 2% average EV can be a better "quality" game than one with a 3% average EV? If so; please explain.

 

[Southpaw]

If the games have the same win rate they will have the SAME SCORE!!!!, SCORE is just a standardized win rate!!

Not if the standard-deviation is larger in one of the games. This is why overbetting to increase "expected" win-rate will lower SCORE.

SP

 

[Southpaw]

Let's get back to the original question posed by the OP - is there anyone here who thinks that a BJ game with a 2% average EV can be a better "quality" game than one with a 3% average EV? If so; please explain.

If the variance is significantly lower in one of the games, then you could use a bigger unit size in the lower advantage game, thus making more money, all while keeping the RoR constant. It all depends on how much you could make in either of the games with a constant RoR. This is SCORE.

SP

 

[iCountNTrack]

Not if the standard-deviation is larger in one of the games. This is why overbetting to increase "expected" win-rate will lower SCORE.

SP

When you are comparing win rates the ROR and number of hands per hour must be the same!

Did you read the last the few sentences of my earlier post, i said SCORE is a standardized win rate that is good for comparing two games!.

 

[Sucker]

If the variance is significantly lower in one of the games, then you could use a bigger unit size in the lower advantage game, thus making more money, all while keeping the RoR constant.
SP

Is it fair to assume that YOUR response to the OP's question (Does EV ever trump game quality?) would be something like: "Yes. But only when the reward justifies the risk."?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Let's get back to the original question posed by the OP - is there anyone here who thinks that a BJ game with a 2% average EV can be a better "quality" game than one with a 3% average EV? If so; please explain.

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.

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Agree 100% But

Using RA indexes WILL NOT reduce your RETURN (will be further discussed), using RA indexes will enable to bet slightly more while maintaining the same risk thus will slightly increase your RETURN.

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

 

[blackjack avenger]

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

 

[Sucker]

Yes because you are interested in your hourly RETURN not your percent EV.

Touche'! This proves the INVERSE of the OP's question. And such a good answer that I must revise an earlier statement by me. EV is only PART of the definition of game quality. (But a very important part)

Does EV ever trump game quality? I say yes, all other things being equal.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Ok; accepting your figure of a 2.1% gain on the initial bet; here is what is REALLY happening:

If you put up another max-bet to complete the double-down; yes - the return on the INITIAL bet is 2.1%. HOWEVER, you are ALSO earning 2.5% on that DOUBLE DOWN max bet. For a $200 bet you are earning $4.00 by not doubling, but you will be earning a total of $9.20 by doubling. This works out to a gain of 2.6%, not .1%...

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.

 

[Southpaw]

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

 

[Sucker]

Not really, sorry if this has already been explained...

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 it's correct to bet $200 with a 2.5% edge, and if your double down will yield an increase of >2.5% over NOT doubling down; then it's correct to put down $200 MORE.

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.

 

[Southpaw]

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.

Let's not forget that you also said this, though ...

In other than certain circumstances, using RA indices is a chicken's way to play; and it "leaves money on the table".

SP

 

[blackjack avenger]

I Lost the Thread

This thread is not suppose to be about ra and ev indices
:joker::whip:
good cards

No one bets near or at table max?

 

[aslan]

Does EV ever Trump Game Quality? If so when?