Well, I tried to lol.
When Blue Efficiency says "junk BJ games are better than roulette, slots or carnival poker games." it would be a fact, probably most of the time anyway, if he had said "junk BJ games have a lower HA than roulette, slots or carnival poker games."
When Blue Efficiency said "If they go into a casino for entertainment and drinks resigned to lose the $100 they bring, in the end it doesn't really matter which game they play." I'd have to disagree a little because the only thing that would matter to me is how long my entertainment dollar could last - I'd rather take a longer time to lose it than in a shorter time period.
What, to me, in this case, makes a game "better" or not, is to answer how long will it take me to lose my $100. Which, of course, HA is a factor but so is $min and number of bet decisions made per hour.
It's no different than AP's who wish to maximize their $win per unit of time. The maximization of $won per hour doesn't always follow from the HA of the basic game or, indeed, always simply follow from what his "+W/L" is. He also must care about hands/hr and $min vs $max, along with other rules that don't even effect HA like mid-shoe entry etc.
If they only based stuff on basic HA, or even their advantage as counters, which is we assume positive, they would be doing themselves a disservice to soley focus on HA and ignore their expected $win per hour.
In a way, the approach a BS player has to a -EV game perhaps should be much the same as the approach an AP has to a -EV game. Except the BS guy has access to many more games than AP's because they are simply not countable in the first place and he doesn't really care becasue he only wants and will play the game that minimizes his $loss per hour.
When Blue Efficiency says "junk BJ games are better than roulette, slots or carnival poker games." it would be a fact, probably most of the time anyway, if he had said "junk BJ games have a lower HA than roulette, slots or carnival poker games."
When Blue Efficiency said "If they go into a casino for entertainment and drinks resigned to lose the $100 they bring, in the end it doesn't really matter which game they play." I'd have to disagree a little because the only thing that would matter to me is how long my entertainment dollar could last - I'd rather take a longer time to lose it than in a shorter time period.
What, to me, in this case, makes a game "better" or not, is to answer how long will it take me to lose my $100. Which, of course, HA is a factor but so is $min and number of bet decisions made per hour.
It's no different than AP's who wish to maximize their $win per unit of time. The maximization of $won per hour doesn't always follow from the HA of the basic game or, indeed, always simply follow from what his "+W/L" is. He also must care about hands/hr and $min vs $max, along with other rules that don't even effect HA like mid-shoe entry etc.
If they only based stuff on basic HA, or even their advantage as counters, which is we assume positive, they would be doing themselves a disservice to soley focus on HA and ignore their expected $win per hour.
In a way, the approach a BS player has to a -EV game perhaps should be much the same as the approach an AP has to a -EV game. Except the BS guy has access to many more games than AP's because they are simply not countable in the first place and he doesn't really care becasue he only wants and will play the game that minimizes his $loss per hour.
6.5, hit 17, in 2, d, 6, d, 8d....hmmmmm
