Minimalize standard variation

[Mr_Nikt]

Ive just read all threads about UK.
Lots of you guys say: "you can't win money - try to play poker", "spread 1-8", "150 quid per hour - impossible" and stuff like that. But I couldn't see anyone who tried to play with proper stake which minimalize standard variation.
If you play on table with 5 pound min and your max bet is 40 or 60 quid all you potential win is going to be eaten by your loses when TC is below 0.
For most common UK rules: 6 decks, S17, DAS, No Surrender, No Peek estimated casino edge is 0.55% for a table with min 5 pound proper stakes should be: TC+2 - 75, TC+3 - 150, TC+4 - 200, TC+5 - 300, TC+6 - 400.
Of course there is one thing - bankroll needs to be as much as 20000 pound.
Have you ever tried to play like that guys?

BTW: Sorry for my english . I am eastern european and I live in UK just for one year.

 

[tezzadiver]

Ive just read all threads about UK.
Lots of you guys say: "you can't win money - try to play poker", "spread 1-8", "150 quid per hour - impossible" and stuff like that. But I couldn't see anyone who tried to play with proper stake which minimalize standard variation.
If you play on table with 5 pound min and your max bet is 40 or 60 quid all you potential win is going to be eaten by your loses when TC is below 0.
For most common UK rules: 6 decks, S17, DAS, No Surrender, No Peek estimated casino edge is 0.55% for a table with min 5 pound proper stakes should be: TC+2 - 75, TC+3 - 150, TC+4 - 200, TC+5 - 300, TC+6 - 400.
Of course there is one thing - bankroll needs to be as much as 20000 pound.
Have you ever tried to play like that guys?

BTW: Sorry for my english . I am eastern european and I live in UK just for one year.

I spread 1-8 on 4 deck games and 1-12 on six deck games with no problem and I`m making a steady profit. The bet spread you are talknig about is totally riduculous in my opinion. 1-100 on plus 6. LOL:joker:I think you will need more than a 20000 pound bankroll to justify bets like that.
The kelly criterion states never to bet more than 1/100th of your bankroll at any time. The way you want to bet -a small losing streak will easily wipe you out!
Not to mention spreading your bets from £5 to £400- You don`t think that is going to attract any uneccesary attention.
About playing with a true count of anything below zero- Why play it? I have never gotten heat for sitting out some rounds or leaving the table in the UK. Find a good excuse,tell the other players you have a bad gut feeling- whatever!!
The best way to play is to parlay your bets- slowly increase them with the count. If i win the last shoe on a high count- start a new deck with a big bet- Camouflage.
Good luck with your betspread - I`ll be looking for you at the tables.LOL:cool2:

 

[UK-21]

It is possible to play with the focus on minimsing variance rather than maximising EV, and this will go some way to reducing horrendous neg variance and losing streaks.

I use Hi-Lo and don't double 9, 10s and 11s against dealer 2,3,4s at TC+3+. The effect of the unknown number of 7,8,9s in the deck, combined with a dealers 2,3,4, leave a window open to lose, and when that happens you lose twice the original ramped up bet (which could be 32 units if spreading 1-16). The chances of winning the hand against a dealer 5 or 6 increase significantly as a 7,8 or 9 on a dealer's 5 or 6 at a high count leaves the probablility that the dealer will bust out. If you've a 9 there's a higher than average (neutral shoe) chance you'll end up with 19. If the dealer has a 3 or 4, and s/he then draws a 7 the odds are you'll lose that hand. Over the longer term you'll win more by doubling these hands, but the variance until you get there (600 hours of play, or whatever????) will be greater.

I did some sums a while back which indicated when doubling against a 2,3,4, at TC+3 half of the long term benefit of doubling is derived when you hold 11, and the other half when you hold a 9 or 10. So if you still doubled the 11s and only held off on the 9s and 10s you'd only be giving up 50%ish of the additional return from doubling these hands. As TC+3 only occurs around 8% of the time, the loss of EV worked out to be pretty negligible overall (although that's relative of course) over a sample of 100,000 hands. At the end of the day it's the old chestnut of risk and return and on whether you're playing for entertainment with a challenge or to make money. If the focus is on maximising EV, then double every opportunity as it presents itself, but be prepared for greater variance and bigger losses if you lose a succession of doubled high count hands.

Going back to your original post, you're right. Spreading 1-8 and playing all hands will leave a marginal +EV - a little more than breakeven in fact. In order to make the game profitable you need to leave the table at neg counts, and use a higher spread (which in the UK you can usually get away with (1-16 or 1-24) - try playing two hands if possible as the count hits TC+3+). This'll push up the long term EV to around +1.50% to 2.00% or higher.

Good luck!

 

[ycming]

It is possible to play with the focus on minimsing variance rather than maximising EV, and this will go some way to reducing horrendous neg variance and losing streaks.

But then you are not fully utilisizing it when you have a winning streak . (if that does exist..)

Me personally, follow the BS and indicies exactly. And I won't have my max bet oput till it reaches +4. The rule of thumb is when you have around 2% advantage at +4 is only around 1.5%.

If you want to reduce variance why not just put the betting ramp on a higher counts instead of giving the opportuinty away . Hmmm thinking about it, I will buy all your doubles from you all those 9,10,11 vs 234

Ming

 

[UK-21]

You are of course right, if you win having hit rather than doubled, the amount won is reduced. But if you lose, you lose big.

Take playing 9 against a dealer's 2. My index for this is TC+1. So doubling this at +1, where I play 1 unit, risks just one more unit. But at TC+4? You'd be risking an additional 16 units (if you spread 1-16) on a play where there's a difference of around a penny in the pound on the longer term EV (emphasis on "longer term"). With a 9v3, it's around 3p (2.6p according to the chart I have for 6 deck hand expectations, although the pos count may make these slightly more).

And yes, you can buy these doubles off me at TC+3+ when we play together, but on the condition that if a nine draws a two and I'm stuck with a hand of 11 I can't hit, you'll refund my initial bet. In fact that can go for 9v3 as well - so you can pay for the privilege of being stuck with a 12 that can't be hit when the unknown 7,8,9s would make this into a strong hand.

See you soon. :grin: