Sequencer's Basic Strategy?

[Automatic Monkey]

Has anyone published a Basic Strategy for sequencers who put down large bets and have no idea what the true count is? Marginal split and double plays which can double your risk with only a tiny increase in win rate are to be avoided for Kelly bankroll considerations. E.g., yes, you got your ace, and then a two, and the dealer shows 5... I might double if I have a table min down but if I have 5% of my BR down, no way!

So what I'm envisioning is a BS chart for bets placed with a 1% advantage, a 2% advantage, 5%, 10%, etc. It will be the opposite of a Counter's Basic Strategy chart which assumes the count is high, SBS would assume the count is zero. If no one has worked out these numbers yet I'll be happy to do it, I just don't want to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Sonny]

Marginal split and double plays which can double your risk with only a tiny increase in win rate are to be avoided for Kelly bankroll considerations.

Good point. So basically this would be a risk-averse BS. You would be avoiding plays that increase your risk too much (beyond your critical value of certainty equivalence) and don’t add much to your EV. You could even make “indices” for several borderline plays, such as “Double A,2 vs. 5 if my bet is less than X units, otherwise hit.” Essentially you would be using your bet size, instead of the TC, to adjust your play.

As far as I know this information has never been published anywhere. You could use Schlesinger’s formula for risk-averse indices as a starting point.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

Good point. So basically this would be a risk-averse BS. You would be avoiding plays that increase your risk too much (beyond your critical value of certainty equivalence) and don’t add much to your EV. You could even make “indices” for several borderline plays, such as “Double A,2 vs. 5 if my bet is less than X units, otherwise hit.” Essentially you would be using your bet size, instead of the TC, to adjust your play.

As far as I know this information has never been published anywhere. You could use Schlesinger’s formula for risk-averse indices as a starting point.

I think it would require a BS based soley on Ace-richness - might be easy to create with CV-sim? zg

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I think it would require a BS based soley on Ace-richness - might be easy to create with CV-sim? zg

No it's a bit different than that. Let's say you are just tracking a single ace, double-key, and you put down a huge bet because the key sequence puts the ace on your spot next hand. You have no idea about the deck composition.

Whether you get your ace or not, you might end up with a double or split play. Things like A2 vs 5, A4 vs 4, 88 vs. 10, 77, 66, 33, vs. 2 etc. The other category of plays would be hit/stand plays that consider the advantage of a push. E.g., would you draw A6 vs. 7 if you had 10% of your BR down? You want to win hands like that, but with so much at stake, I'll be happy with a do-over!

Grosjean wrote some stuff about this in his Ace in The Hand essay, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for. I know what I'll do, I'll post some charts that I come up with later this week and you can let me know what you think.

 

[forwhat77]

Ever work anymore on this AM?

 

[65D]

If one did not know the composition of the deck, then wouldn't it then be best assumed to be ZERO.

And if assumed to be ZERO, would not stardard Basic Stradegy be the most appropriate stradegy.

I guess I dont get it maybe.
But what about this is any different that a shoe w/ a TC of Zero (flat)