Risk-Averse Mentor Index on 10 vs 10

[Friendo]

I ran a CVData index generation yesterday: Mentor count, risk-averse indices for H17, and six decks.

Doubling 10 vs 10 was the first result I checked. It was interesting to note that there was no index generated.

This could be the sensible result, since different system tag sets differ in their correlation to certain plays, but does this sound right?

I'm willing to never double 10 vs 10, but I thought I'd ask: Are there other systems for which the risk-averse play here is to never double?

 

[FLASH1296]

The answer to your question is NO.

You may see ZERO if your indices do not include extreme indices.

Depending on the count's tags and how the True Counts are divined

the RISK AVERSE Index for this play is likely to be rather high.

 

[Friendo]

Probably past QFIT count ceiling

Thanks.

The magnitude of the index must put the play beyond the ceiling of usefulness and well into the realm of comedy.

EDIT: I tried again, and got a 25, so this looks like operator error.

That's not too high to use, but hardly one I'll be using every day at the tables. Equivalent to a 6 or 7 in High-Low.

 

[Renzey]

I tried again, and got a 25, so this looks like operator error. That's not too high to use, but hardly one I'll be using every day at the tables. Equivalent to a 6 or 7 in High-Low.

This is not an exact calculation, but I'm pretty sure that an index of about "26" would be the risk averse number for doubling 10 vs. 10 with Mentor using the "count-per-2-remaining-decks" TC method.

Personally I relish doubling with 10 vs. 10 at the benchmark (Hi/Lo, count-per-deck) TC of around +5.5, and also occasionally double that hand for camo with a 1 unit bet at TC's of zero to +1. It does rank as the 6th most valuable index play of the I-18, and looks foolishly aggressive. The loss at a neutral count for this play is 2.7% of 1 unit.

 

[Gamblor]

This is not an exact calculation, but I'm pretty sure that an index of about "26" would be the risk averse number for doubling 10 vs. 10 with Mentor using the "count-per-2-remaining-decks" TC method.

Personally I relish doubling with 10 vs. 10 at the benchmark (Hi/Lo, count-per-deck) TC of around +5.5, and also occasionally double that hand for camo with a 1 unit bet at TC's of zero to +1. It does rank as the 6th most valuable index play of the I-18, and looks foolishly aggressive. The loss at a neutral count for this play is 2.7% of 1 unit.

Yes, Friendo you might want to rethink about never doubling 10 v 10, its not as risky as it appears.

Put it this way, I'll give you a 10 (two cards) and the dealer a 10, but guarantee the dealer will not get an Ace for his 2nd card. Wouldn't you want to bet more money in this situation? In particular if deck is rich in 10's and A's, especially the A.

 

[Friendo]

Yes, Friendo you might want to rethink about never doubling 10 v 10, its not as risky as it appears.

Good point. My risk-averse index simulation is more of a general-education requirement than a course for my major. I'm interested in the difference between the R.A. index and the regular index for this play, to get a sense of how wide the gap is.

Personally I relish doubling with 10 vs. 10 at the benchmark (Hi/Lo, count-per-deck) TC of around +5.5, and also occasionally double that hand for camo with a 1 unit bet at TC's of zero to +1. It does rank as the 6th most valuable index play of the I-18, and looks foolishly aggressive.

Thanks - my two favorite plays are doubling 8 vs 6 and 10 vs 10. I was thinking of using an index of 19 for this play, as opposed to the usual 15, but I can make room for some aggression in my strategy.

 

[Renzey]

Thanks - my two favorite plays are doubling 8 vs 6 and 10 vs 10. I was thinking of using an index of 19 for this play, as opposed to the usual 15, but I can make room for some aggression in my strategy.

I think your "19" is a good "semi-risk-averse" number for 10 vs. 10. From Blackjack Attack III, the Hi/Lo EV maximizing index is +4 true, while the risk averse index is +7 true.