why double down inreases advantage

[iCountNTrack]

To be consistent with the terminology, shouldn't that read 'the total bet advantage is reduced'?

Consistent to what? all i discuss in my thread is the initial bet advantage.

 

[65D]

if you have a bond that yeilds 4%, with 100,000 dollars invested in it (A)

then you have another bond that yields 5%, with only 50,000 usd in it (B)

which bond makes more profit??? (A)!!!

A= the double down on the 11 vs 9 (analogy here ok)

Those hi low % that were pasted are NOT (and can not mathmatically) be in relation to advantage that you win the hand.
(think about it, that's impossible. Having >1 card to draw is ALWAYS more beneficial than only having 1 card to draw (with all other variables being equal). Hence the IBA always decreases with doubling...always.

Those # must be in reference to the TBA.

I would not get wrapped up in the wording and acroynms. If you just think about it, you get it. It's pretty straight forward

4 x 2 is MORE than 6 x 1

 

[London Colin]

Consistent to what? all i discuss in my thread is the initial bet advantage.

Ah, sorry, I think I misread your post. I read 'the IBA is reduced', as meaning compared to hitting, whereas I think you meant compared to the 11v6 dd case were it is exactly doubled. So the EV goes up for 11vs9, but it is not twice the hitting EV.

The underlying concepts are simple enough, the only difficulty seems to be in the language used to describe them. The bottom line is that if you can only take one more card, then the probability of winning or pushing the hand is reduced, but the extra money you earn when you do win the hand means that the EV increases. [As 65D said, more succinctly than I could manage. ]

 

[iCountNTrack]

if you have a bond that yeilds 4%, with 100,000 dollars invested in it (A)

then you have another bond that yields 5%, with only 50,000 usd in it (B)

which bond makes more profit??? (A)!!!

A= the double down on the 11 vs 9 (analogy here ok)

Those hi low % that were pasted are NOT (and can not mathmatically) be in relation to advantage that you win the hand.
(think about it, that's impossible. Having >1 card to draw is ALWAYS more beneficial than only having 1 card to draw (with all other variables being equal). Hence the IBA always decreases with doubling...always.

Those # must be in reference to the TBA.

I would not get wrapped up in the wording and acroynms. If you just think about it, you get it. It's pretty straight forward

4 x 2 is MORE than 6 x 1

I am sorry but this is incorrect, the numbers usually reported are your initial bet advantage and not total bet advantage.

When you say that the expectation of doubling a 65 vs 6 is 69%. Your return is 69% on your initial (original) bet not including the extra wager you placed in order for you to double your hand.

Again hand playing decisions are based on the intial bet advantage and not the total bet advantage. If doubling is the correct play that means the IBA for doubling is HIGHER than that of hitting.

 

[Sucker]

Again hand playing decisions are based on the intial bet advantage and not the total bet advantage. If doubling is the correct play that means the IBA for doubling is HIGHER than that of hitting.

This works for ME.

 

[psyduck]

Psyduck,

I think you are confusing the initial bet advantage(IBA) commonly known as EV, with the total bet advantage. When calculating the initial bet advantage the extra wager used for a double or split is not incorporated in the calculation. IBA is always used to determine the optimum playing decision.
For hands such as 11vs6 where you are only going to take one card regardless of whether you hit or double your hand, the IBA for doubling is twice the IBA for hitting (for a full or infinite deck).
For hands such as 11 Vs 9 the IBA for doubling (for a full or infinite deck) is reduced(not twice the IBA for hitting) because we are giving up taking another hit card if needed.

First of all, thank you everyone for joining the discussion.

So far the post from iCountNTrack (ICNT) makes the most sense as far as I can understand. I have been assuming the advantage is based on total bet. It makes more sense if it is based on initial bet.

It seems to me that if we compare the advantage based on total bet, doubling down actually has lower advantage than not double because you double the wager without doubling the advantage. Am I getting this one right, ICNT?

 

[psyduck]

You can use the code button (#) to keep your columns straight.

TC            double            no double
-2             10%               10.1%
-1             12.8%             11.0%
 0             15.1%             11.8%

Something like this?:

TC#######double#######no double
0########15.1%#######11.8%

 

[Sucker]

Above the dialog box in which you type your posts is a line of characters. The third character from the end is a bold #. You can use this character to get the proper effect.

 

[sagefr0g]

Apparently the index assigned to double down is determined by when double down has higher advantage than not double - something I do not understand.

does the stuff in this link maybe help? :
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount6.htm

whatever it's an interesting question. the question of doubling down with respect to advantage is a multifaceted one.
i guess i don't fully know the answer to your question but here are some thoughts on the matter.
a ploppy might double down all sort of ways to his disadvantage.
a pure basic strategy player will double down properly for someone who does not know the count. so he'd have a better advantage than the ploppy but not so good of an advantage as a card counting player who will double down according to a indices triggered by the count.
each case has improving degrees of decision making power.
even more advantage comes into play for the card counter who can knowingly bet higher by the count, all the while knowing that he will achieve more successful double downs over a certain range of counts.
it's the old story for card counting in that it affords the counter opportunities to bet higher when he has the knowledge that he's gonna have more successful double downs. that and knowing when successful insurance bets are gonna happen more often than not and knowing that more snappers are gonna present is where the money is made, hence an advantage. so to a great degree the advantage comes from knowledge about what's gonna happen, pure and simple. imagine the possibilities for a hole carder who has even more knowledge, hence advantage.
another facet of the question has to do with the old story of the plain and simple fact that the players can double down if the rules so state, the dealer can not. just as players get payed three to two for snappers, the dealer does not, ect.
probably went off on a tangent here and didn't answer your question, just some thoughts on the matter.

 

[psyduck]

Above the dialog box in which you type your posts is a line of characters. The third character from the end is a bold #. You can use this character to get the proper effect.

                  thank             you
                  thank             you
                  thank             you