Seeking smoother sailing

D

Dopple

Well-Known Member
I recently sustained a 320 unit downswing playing 1-20 6D, S17, DAS 80% and that is tolerable but leaves a mild rash. I am thinking to maybe cap the max at 10 x but get right on it at maybe TC 1.5 or even a little less.

In general are there any big differences between ramping up sooner and ramping up to a higher level. I suppose earlier ramping up the bet has more EV departures by virtue of the very minimal advantage you enjoy at those lower counts.
 
Dopple said:
I recently sustained a 320 unit downswing playing 1-20 6D, S17, DAS 80% and that is tolerable but leaves a mild rash. I am thinking to maybe cap the max at 10 x but get right on it at maybe TC 1.5 or even a little less.

In general are there any big differences between ramping up sooner and ramping up to a higher level. I suppose earlier ramping up the bet has more EV departures by virtue of the very minimal advantage you enjoy at those lower counts.
Click to expand...

Don't even think of putting 10 units out at TC = 1.5. That would be a SCORE killer.

Also, keep in mind that sometimes lowering your spread actually increases your RoR.

It would be best to keep it at 1-20, but lower your stakes. However, if you're a red chipper, then you can't really do this and it would be best to use your day-job (if you have one) to rebuild your bank.

SP
 
No, cutting your spread won't help anything. It'll make you more likely to lose, unless you're undercapitalized for that spread.
 
Your right I remember the post on lower spreads causing higher variance. I wonder when the lowest point you could make a little increase in the bet would be though. I would not like to wait all the way til TC+2.
 
moo321 said:
No, cutting your spread won't help anything. It'll make you more likely to lose, unless you're undercapitalized for that spread.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice. You are the few posters here that understand Blackjack. My game improves dramatically since I began to bet 10 units when TC hits +2. And I haven't seen another negative variance since.
 
You could take a look at those times when you double a max bet - ie although it's correct index play to double 9v2 at a post count, at TC+4 with a max bet out there's still a big window for the dealer to draw to a better hand. There's a big difference in the EVs between 11v6 and 9v2 at TC+4.
 
Risky business indeed

Thanks for responding to my post and you bring up a veritable cornucopia of questions if you dont mind my asking.

First, would I be correct to assume a post count is the index at which you double or hit vs. stand. I know about index plays but not the term post count.

If a person is playing for mostly for fun with a replentiful bankroll he should not worry about RA plays like the 9v2 since they do hurt EV correct?

I wonder if when making the decisions about what the index number should be the creators or indices had to maybe round up some numbers and round others down? Would a play with a high RA index be one of the numbers that just made the cut to become for example in the case of 9v2 at +TC4.

Being a analytical group of people in many cases would it not be of interest to install another dimension onto the index number that would relate to its riskiness. The 9v2 play could be a +TC4z if it were the worst of these doubling index plays as opposed to other doubling index plays.

So while 9v2 is a risky play it is the right play for EV but I assume it is fair to state that it will net you less than one of the more stable doubling index plays you mention ie 11v6, that is elementary and I should have edited it perhaps.

If you got this far I want to thank you for your patience.
 
Dopple said:
If a person is playing for mostly for fun with a replentiful bankroll he should not worry about RA plays like the 9v2 since they do hurt EV correct?
Click to expand...

You should be playing to maximize your SCORE, not your EV. RA indices maximize SCORE, whereas EV maximizing indices do not.

SCORE is all about making the most money with your bankroll at a given RoR. There is no sense to make a play such as doubling 10 v. 10 if the risk created by doing so forces you to use a smaller unit size in order to maintain constant RoR. Basically, you have to look at am I losing more EV by not doing the risky play or by having to use smaller units in order to maintain a constant RoR.

This is exactly what RA indices are all about.

In case you're unaware (as it seems a lot are on this site), SCORE is the per 100 rounds seen win rate (in dollars), given the game conditions and the playing strategy, assuming that one is playing with a 10k bankroll at 13.53% RoR.

SP
 
Dopple said:
" ... In general are there any big differences between ramping up sooner and ramping up to a higher level.
Click to expand...

In doing so you will be betting more at lower True Counts than you had been, and ultimately be betting more as well.

That increases your expectation, but at the price of radically increasing your downside risk.

Unless you have an infinitely replenish-able bankroll and iron-clad risk-tolerance ... it is "not a good idea", understates the case.

 
Without going into RA indices full boar I wonder if anyone would care to share what they feel are the most risky index plays.

Perhaps a kind of counterpart to the illustrious 18 we often hear of.
 
Dopple said:
Without going into RA indices full boar I wonder if anyone would care to share what they feel are the most risky index plays.

Perhaps a kind of counterpart to the illustrious 18 we often hear of.
Click to expand...

I may boast a lot about RA indices, but to be honest, they are only marginally better than EV-maximizing ones. But, they are still better.

Furthermore, few very indices will change.

Schlesinger notes that by and large most of the gain from RA indices comes from switching the index for the 10 v. 10 double-down play.

Certainly if you change your 10 v. 10 and 10-splitting indices to RA, you will be gleaning a large majority of the possible advantage with minimal effort.

SP
 
Thanks again, you know I think trying to make a little money with a limited bankroll can be very challenging. Splitting the tens with alot of money out is probably a bad play for more reasons than one.

I am just happy to be back to 2 min bets per hour, that is why I am posting again. At least I cover my gas.
 
Southpaw said:
I may boast a lot about RA indices, but to be honest, they are only marginally better than EV-maximizing ones. But, they are still better.
Click to expand...
And most of the RA gain may be garnered from just 4 or fewer index changes. zg
Oops - I read the rest of your post.
 
Last edited:
Dopple said:
First, would I be correct to assume a post count is the index at which you double or hit vs. stand. I know about index plays but not the term post count.
Click to expand...

A very fair question indeed. Problem is I don't know what the term "post count" means either - it was a typo and should have read "pos count" (I have 9v2 in my indices list at TC+1). Apologies for that.

It's been discussed at some length before - I think there's a balance to strike between slavishly applying index plays that maximise EV and playing in a way that reduces risk. Risk adverse indices are one way. Another is to move an index up a notch, thereby increasing the probability of the play being successful (greater chance of hitting one of those excess high cards on which the deviation of play is based). Not doubling max bets on some of the lower +EV index plays is a way of reducing swings although it'll affect your long term EV as you won't be making full use of the mathematical advantage.

It all needs to be kept in perspective of course. If you're a recreational player (perhaps not having a dedicated bankroll as such) are you happy making plays that can be very costly - if your expectation is 2 units an hour counting the cards, losing a doubled 20 unit initial bet is the equivalent of 20 hours play? On my table for a 6 deck game, the 9v2 scenario OTT is that standing has a marginally better EV than doubling. Even at TC+4, if you're a hi-lo counter, the unknown 7,8,9s in the deck combined with a 10 can leave a dealer with a good chance of turning a 2,3,4 into a winning hand. And if you've doubled your 9 and drawn a 2 what a sickener that would be?

Usual chestnut, the balance to strike between risk and EV/return???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top